scan_wireless_networks

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

There are no annotations to convey safety or side effects, and the description provides no additional behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the scan is passive, what permissions are needed, what output to expect, or any potential impact on the environment.

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 a single concise sentence that says exactly what the tool does without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, simple scanning tool.

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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return value format, scope of 'nearby', or whether this is a passive scan, which would be helpful for an agent understanding the tool's behavior fully.

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 an empty schema, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and a specific resource ('nearby wireless networks'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_local_network by focusing on wireless networks specifically.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other scanning tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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