wan_detect_mtu6

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is read-only, which is the key safety-relevant trait, but it does not explain what the status represents (e.g., detection state, MTU value, success/failure) or whether calling it triggers a new detection. This is adequate for a simple status query but minimal.

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 compact, front-loaded phrase with no filler. Every word contributes: 'IPv6' establishes scope, 'WAN MTU detection' names the resource, and 'read-only' conveys safety and behavior.

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?

The tool is simple—zero parameters, no output schema—so the description is close to sufficient for invocation. However, because there is no output schema, the description would benefit from stating what the response contains, such as detection status values or the detected MTU. This is a small but real gap for an agent deciding whether this tool answers a given question.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to document. The description does not introduce any ambiguity or conflicting parameter-related expectations.

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 resource ('IPv6 WAN MTU detection') and the operation type ('status', 'read-only'), so an agent can distinguish it from mutation-oriented siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'show' or 'get', but the noun phrase 'detection status' makes the read-only purpose evident.

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 description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, and it does not direct the agent to alternatives such as wan_detect_mtu for IPv4 or wan_status for general WAN status. The 'IPv6' and 'read-only' labels imply an inspection context, but that is not enough to count as real usage guidance.

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