Check current and next-boot radio mode (off, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth) on the CYD desktop. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are exclusive, so this status clarifies which will be active.
Machine-specific (cyd). Observation, L3. Read the radio mode of this boot (off, wifi or bluetooth) and the mode stored for the next boot. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are exclusive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full responsibility. 'Read' and 'Observation' correctly imply a read-only operation, and the exclusivity note adds useful state-model information. However, there is no mention of permissions, error cases, or what happens if radio state is unknown, leaving some gaps.
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?
Two tightly written sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, the state values are enumerated, and the exclusivity constraint is provided in a second short clause. No wasted words.
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 parameterless read-status tool, the description covers what is returned (current and next-boot radio mode) and its domain (off, wifi, bluetooth). Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about return format would boost it, but the tool's simplicity makes the description largely sufficient.
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 covers 100% of them, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on semantics of the response rather than parameters.
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 states a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource (radio mode), and specifies exactly what is read: current boot mode and next-boot stored mode, with enumerated values. It also distinguishes the tool as an observation tool within a set that includes a setting sibling (cyd_radio_set).
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 implies a usage context ('Observation, L3') but never explicitly says when to use this over alternatives such as cyd_radio_set or cyd_bt_status. There are no when-not-to-use caveats or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.