list_wifi_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a behavioral nuance by saying 'Scan' and clarifies the result scope ('all nearby WiFi networks'), but it does not disclose details like scan duration, number of results, or whether previously known networks are included. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The core action and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage condition is stated briefly in the second. It is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless read-only listing tool with rich annotations. The description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No additional information is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is effectively complete. The description therefore needs to convey no parameter semantics; it appropriately focuses on behavior and output. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter 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 states a specific action ('Scan and list') applied to a clear resource ('all nearby WiFi networks') and identifies the output ('SSID and signal strength'). It also distinguishes itself from a focus on the current connection, making its scope 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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user wants to see available nearby networks, not just their current connection. It provides a clear usage context and an exclusion, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative like get_wifi_status.

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