wifi_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds scoping context (both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands, guest network state included) but says nothing about freshness, permissions, or whether it reflects live vs. cached state.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the scope (both bands) is stated up front. It loses a point only because leading with a bare noun phrase rather than an action statement makes it slightly less immediately actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values — and in fact its field enumeration partly duplicates that schema. For a zero-param read tool the remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against router_status, which is not addressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey — baseline 4 applies. The description's band references are not parameters but rather describe fixed coverage, which is harmless.

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 enumerates the data returned (SSIDs, channels, security mode, guest network state) and the bands covered, so the resource is identifiable, but it never states a verb or that this is a read/retrieval operation. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling router_status, which an agent could easily confuse with Wi-Fi configuration data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of when to call wifi_info versus router_status, scan_network, or set_guest_wifi (the obvious mutation counterpart for the guest-network state it reports). The agent is left to infer selection from the field list alone.

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