WAN connection info

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the returned fields (up state, protocol, IP, gateway, uptime). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the non-destructive, read-only behavior is clear. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words, efficiently conveying all essential information. No redundant or unnecessary content. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the tool's trivial complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers its purpose and returned data. No additional information is needed for correct usage.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no missing parameter information.

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 specific function: retrieving upstream/WAN connection details, and lists the exact data fields (up state, protocol, public IP, gateway, uptime). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'router_status' or 'list_devices'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, the tool's simplicity and zero parameters make its usage obvious—it is for retrieving WAN info. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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