Analyze Wi-Fi channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the valuable non-annotation detail that the tool returns a recommendation (least busy channel) rather than raw scan data, which tells the agent what to expect from the result.

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 front-loaded sentence that states action and outcome with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only analysis tool whose annotations fully cover the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing structured fields do not: that the output is a channel recommendation. No output schema exists, and the description adequately characterizes the return value, though it could note the scope of the analysis (e.g. per-band or per-radio).

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 nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion that does not apply.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Analyze') with a specific resource ('WiFi channel congestion') and adds the concrete outcome ('recommend the least busy channel'). This clearly separates it from data-listing siblings such as get_wifi and get_site_survey, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_wifi, get_site_survey, or get_wifi_stations, all of which touch the same Wi-Fi domain. The 'recommend' framing implies the use case loosely, but no condition or exclusion is given.

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