get_wifi_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the baseline burden is lower. The description adds value by scoping the operation to 'current WiFi connection state only' and naming the exact returned fields, which clarifies that this is a lightweight read of current status rather than a scan. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 three purpose-driven sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's primary behavior, then gives explicit usage context, then closes with a clear alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, the exact fields returned, when to use it, and when to avoid it in favor of a sibling. There are no 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so parameter semantics are effectively trivial. The description appropriately explains what the tool reports rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('WiFi connection state'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: connected/disconnected status, active SSID, and signal strength. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_wifi_networks, so an agent can tell sibling tools apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when the user asks if they are connected or what network they are on') and an explicit exclusion with an alternative ('Do NOT use to browse nearby networks — use list_wifi_networks for that'). This fully resolves selection ambiguity.

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