get_wifi_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic 'get' operation without mentioning response behavior, error conditions, permissions, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

The description is compact, with the primary function front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise parameter definitions. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy.

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 single-resource getter, the description covers the essential inputs and how to obtain the ID. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It lacks mention of potential errors or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains all three parameters: host includes formats (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site is name or ID, and broadcast_id is marked required with a pointer to `list_wifi_broadcasts`. This is detailed, practical guidance that the schema alone lacks.

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 operation: "Get a single WiFi broadcast SSID by ID." The verb 'Get' and the resource 'WiFi broadcast SSID' are specific and distinguish this tool from siblings like list_wifi_broadcasts (list all) and update/delete_wifi_broadcast (mutations).

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 explains how to use the tool by defining each parameter's role, especially the source of broadcast_id via `list_wifi_broadcasts`. It provides clear context for retrieval but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions.

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