Scan nearby Wi-Fi networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that, only restating the title; it never mentions that a scan may take time, may briefly disturb the radio, or what scope of results (own APs vs. neighbors) to expect.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless call, though it is terse enough that nothing is elaborated.

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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, a short description is defensible, but the result shape (SSIDs, BSSIDs, channels, signal strength) and the fact that this is a live scan rather than a cached listing are left entirely implicit.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side, and it correctly implies the call needs no arguments.

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 and resource ('Scan and list nearby WiFi networks'), so an agent knows it enumerates surrounding access points rather than configuring Wi-Fi. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_channel_analysis, get_wifi, or get_wifi_stations, which all touch the wireless domain.

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. The sibling set contains several plausibly overlapping Wi-Fi tools (get_wifi, get_wifi_stations, get_channel_analysis), and the description gives no condition for choosing this one over them or any prerequisite for invoking it.

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