wan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'read-only', which signals no side effects, a key trait. However, it does not describe the return format, whether multiple WANs are supported, or any error behavior. For a simple read-only query this is adequate 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 single, dense phrase that front-loads the resource (WAN) and the data points, and includes the read-only qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary of the expected return content (state, mode, IP, gateway, traffic, DNS). It does not specify the exact structure, but that is not critical for invocation. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none. The phrase 'Per-WAN' implies it queries all WAN links without filtering, which is consistent with the empty parameter schema.

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 (WAN link) and the exact data points it reports (state, mode, IP, gateway, traffic, DNS), and it marks the operation as read-only. It is easily distinguished from sibling mutation tools like wan_enable/wan_disable and from LAN-specific tools like show_lan. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the intent is unmistakable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools (e.g., show_status, show_statistic, wan_detect). It does not mention that this is the go-to per-WAN status query, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives. The only hint is 'read-only', which is implicit but not comparative.

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