wan_detect

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only,' which is the most important behavioral trait for this zero-parameter status query, and prevents the agent from mistaking it for a detection-triggering action.

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 concise at six words and front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it does not explain what the returned status values mean or how to interpret the output. It also does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like wan_status, leaving some ambiguity for a selecting agent.

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 contains no properties, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-level detail.

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 connection detection status' clearly identifies the resource and the type of operation (a read/query). It is not a tautology, but it lacks a specific verb such as 'show' or 'get' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wan_status.

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 about when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as wan_status, wan_detect_mtu, or internet_view. The only context provided is 'read-only,' which is a safety property, not usage direction.

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