get_wan_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get', 'Shows'), but it does not disclose whether data is real-time or historical, aggregation details, or potential access limitations. The behavior is transparent in intent but lacks depth expected without annotations.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Get per-WAN data usage breakdown') and then provide a defining detail. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential return content (per-interface breakdown with download/upload totals), but could optionally specify units or time period. Overall, it is complete enough for a read-only tool of this simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema is empty. It focuses on the output, which is appropriate 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('per-WAN data usage breakdown'), with explicit detail on what it shows ('bandwidth consumption per WAN interface with download/upload totals'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_stats or get_vpn_status, which focus on different scopes.

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 implies usage when WAN-level data usage is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like get_network_performance could overlap, yet no guidance is given.

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