list_wifi_broadcasts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the filter is forwarded unchanged as the upstream `filter` query parameter and is omitted entirely when unset. It does not discuss pagination or output size, but for a list tool with an output schema this is a minor gap.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The parameter block is dense but every clause adds practical value, especially the filter passthrough note.

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 three-parameter list tool, all invocation-relevant information is present. The output schema covers return values, and the description covers parameter semantics, optionality, and upstream filter behavior without leaving material gaps.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It defines the accepted host formats, describes site as name or ID, and explains the filter expression with concrete examples and omission behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all WiFi broadcast SSIDs for a site.' The word 'all' and the site scoping clearly distinguish this from the singular get_wifi_broadcast and from create/update/delete variants among the siblings.

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 phrase 'List all ... for a site' provides clear context for when to use this tool over a single-item getter. It does not explicitly name the alternative or list exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous.

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