vigbrg_wlanstatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key non-mutating trait ('read-only'), which is useful. It stops there, providing no detail about returned data or side-effect-free guarantees beyond that phrase.

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 entire description is one short phrase with a parenthetical qualifier; no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a no-argument status tool.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only status tool the description gives enough to identify the call, but it omits any sense of the returned wireless status fields and doesn't route the agent among closely named siblings. With no output schema, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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 properties, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters; baseline 4 applies.

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 expands the tool name into 'Vigor bridge wireless status' and explicitly marks it read-only, which tells an agent the resource and operation type. It differentiates from sibling vigbrg_status and vigbrg_wanstatus by singling out wireless, but it uses no verb and doesn't specify what aspects of status are returned.

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?

There is no statement about when to choose this tool over vigbrg_status, vigbrg_wanstatus, or vigbrg_set. The read-only label implicitly says it isn't for configuration, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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