v2_wan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations by warning that on a controller with no Omada gateway the output only reports what is and is not manageable — useful operational caveat — but omits return format and pagination behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by a useful edge-case caveat. No filler, though it is terse rather than richly structured.

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 read-only single-parameter view tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one important edge case adequately. It still leaves the siteId semantics and the shape of the returned WAN data unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single siteId parameter, and the description never mentions siteId at all. With only one optional parameter the omission is low-stakes, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('WAN/internet view') and enumerates the returned facets: WAN network config, port count, per-port state and IP. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like v2_lan_networks and v2_switches, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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?

It implies a usage context by noting the controller-without-Omada-gateway case, which tells the agent something about when results will be sparse. However, it never states when to prefer this over v2_status, v2_lan_networks, or other network-view siblings.

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