vigbrg_wanstatus

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

The 'read-only' phrase is the sole behavioral disclosure, which is useful but minimal. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits details like whether it returns live data, cache, or any side effects. For a status tool this may be sufficient, but it adds little beyond the purpose.

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 a single, concise phrase with no filler. It front-loads the key facts: what (WAN status), where (Vigor bridge), and how (read-only). Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema status tool, the description is complete enough to convey the essential purpose and safety profile. The lack of return-value details is acceptable given no output schema exists, and the tool's simplicity lowers the bar.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. No parameter documentation is needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds nothing that contradicts it.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving WAN status for a Vigor bridge, with an explicit read-only note. It distinguishes from generic wan_status (likely for main WAN) and other vigbrg_* tools by naming the specific component.

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 guidance is given on when to prefer this over siblings like wan_status or vigbrg_status. The description only states what it does, not when to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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