connect_wifi

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not mention side effects such as disconnecting from an existing network, whether the connection persists, or what happens on failure. The description neither contradicts nor meaningfully extends the annotation information.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's needs; brevity here comes at the cost of omitting parameter and usage guidance. It is not excessively verbose, but it is not appropriately sized for a tool with behavioral and parameter complexities.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and the presence of WiFi-related siblings, the description is incomplete. An agent knows this tool connects to WiFi but lacks the context needed to invoke it correctly, such as required versus optional parameters and how the operation interacts with the current network state. The description is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain parameter behavior, but it says nothing about ssid or password. The schema only provides names and types, leaving critical semantics undocumented, such as whether password is required for secured networks, whether null is acceptable for open networks, or what values ssid should take. This is a significant gap for a tool that is unusable without understanding these 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 specific verb and resource: 'Connect to a WiFi network.' This clearly identifies the primary action and is immediately distinguishable from sibling commands like list_wifi_networks, disconnect_wifi, and get_wifi_status. It lacks detail about scope or behavior, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toggle_wifi or list_wifi_networks. It does not mention prerequisites like WiFi being enabled, how to discover SSIDs, or when disconnect_wifi would be more appropriate. Usage context is entirely left to inference.

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