List WiFi networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read behavior and dynamic results. The description adds value by detailing the output fields, which is sufficient for this simple tool without need for additional caveats.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key fields, with zero redundancy or wasted words. Every sentence 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 read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the returned fields and hints at cross-tool usage. It could mention possible empty results or error scenarios, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). The description does not add parameter information, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no further semantic clarification is needed.

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 lists configured wireless networks and specifies the exact fields returned: id, enabled state, channel, band, and encryption. It also notes the id's integration with set_wifi, providing a concrete use case.

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 explicitly mentions using the id with set_wifi, which serves as a guideline for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of sibling tools like set_wifi and reboot_router helps differentiate, and the advice is clear and actionable.

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