log_wan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Because no annotations are supplied, the description carries the burden, and the explicit '(read-only)' label is a useful behavioral signal. It still does not disclose return format, log length, ordering, or behavior when the WAN log is unavailable, so coverage is only partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and contains no filler, so every token earns its place. The brevity is not a structural problem, though it does contribute to semantic thinness elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more context about what is returned. 'WAN log (read-only)' gives only the generic resource and safety profile, leaving return value semantics, scope, and context of the log unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain. This matches the baseline for no-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'WAN log (read-only)' clearly identifies the resource and signals a non-mutating operation, so it is more than a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'show', and it only weakly differentiates itself from sibling log_* tools like log_tail, log_filter, and log_ppp.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer log_wan over log_tail, log_filter, log_ppp, or wan_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.