wan_detect_mtu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'read-only', a useful non-destructive signal, but does not add detail about the meaning or shape of the status output.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The parenthetical 'read-only' adds safety context without bloat.

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 status tool, this is close to adequate: it names the subject and read-only nature. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what the status means or how it relates to sibling detection tools, the description leaves some ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already provides complete coverage, so a baseline of 4 is warranted. The description cannot add parameter-level value because no parameters exist.

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 a read-only status query for WAN MTU detection. 'Status (read-only)' distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like wan_detect, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The read-only hint implies the tool is used to retrieve current MTU detection status rather than change settings. However, there is no explicit explanation of when to choose this over wan_detect, wan_detect_mtu6, or wan_mtu.

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