network_wifi_info

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

The description includes a '[SAFE]' tag but no official annotations are provided. It does not disclose behavioral details such as what data is returned, whether it requires root permissions, or other side effects. The description carries the full burden for transparency but adds minimal behavioral insight beyond being safe.

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 sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the safety tag and clearly conveys the purpose efficiently.

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 simple information retrieval tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain the structure of the returned information (e.g., SSID, signal strength) or any limitations. It is minimally sufficient but could be more helpful.

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 the input schema is empty. Schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as nothing is missing.

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 information about available WiFi networks and current connection. It specifies the resource ('WiFi networks and current connection') and action ('Get information'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'network_interfaces' which cover general network interfaces.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where it is appropriate or not.

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