List Wi-Fi stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned data (signal strength, traffic, device name, mesh node), which is the most useful behavioral context for a no-argument read tool lacking an output schema.

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 the resource front-loaded and the useful return fields appended; every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what data comes back. Coverage is good, though it could note whether results are paginated or limited to the local mesh.

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 the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

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 (Get) and resource (currently associated WiFi stations) plus the fields returned (signal strength, traffic, device name, mesh node). This distinguishes it from get_clients/get_mesh_nodes by scoping to associated stations, though it never names those siblings 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?

The word 'currently associated' implies the usage context (live wireless associations rather than all known clients), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as get_clients or get_mesh_nodes for related queries.

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