get_wifi_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a GET request, returns the latest scan results, and details the response structure. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty scan results or whether the scan is triggered, but the read-only nature is clearly implied by 'Retrieve' and 'GET'.

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 moderately sized and well-structured with clear sections for the return object and use case. It is a bit verbose but every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure improves readability.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (count and network list with fields) and provides a use case. It lacks mention of error handling or empty results, but for a simple no-parameter getter, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter information.

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 the tool retrieves currently scanned Wi-Fi networks from the Busy Bar device, specifying the endpoint and method. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_wifi_status by focusing on the list of available networks, not the current connection status.

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 a clear use case (browsing networks before switching access points or checking signal quality) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools. The use case is specific enough to guide an agent, but exclusions are missing.

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