Get Wi-Fi status

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 profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the field set that comes back, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it omits whether results cover one radio or both bands and gives no rate/refresh context.

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 with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the payload list follows. Every token 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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does name the fields — helpful. But it leaves structural questions open (one radio vs. per-band results, units, whether station count is a list or a number), which matters for a status tool with several lookalike siblings.

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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get WiFi radio status') and enumerates the returned fields (channel, bandwidth, bitrate, temperature, stations count), so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely-named siblings like get_wifi_stations, get_channel_analysis, or get_site_survey, which plausibly return overlapping WiFi 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative is named. The agent must guess whether to call this versus get_wifi_stations for station counts or get_channel_analysis for channel data.

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