get_wireless_link_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: generation-dependent field availability (ROS7's `/interface/wifi/registration-table` returns `None` for signal-to-noise/tx-ccq/rx-ccq/distance rather than fabricating them), the empty-list-not-error convention, and the fact that tx/rx rate drops right after a channel/power change are expected transients. It omits any explicit permission/auth or read-only statement, but that is a minor gap against a genuinely informative disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each subsequent paragraph covers a distinct concern (usage, parameter, generation caveats). It is dense with parenthetical cross-references to docstrings and API notes, which slightly slows reading, but no sentence is pure 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 moderate-complexity read tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers the invocation condition, the alternative sibling, the one non-obvious parameter, and the field-availability/edge-case behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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 must compensate. It does explain `interface` as an optional filter to peers associated on one local interface, with shape validation, which adds real meaning beyond the schema. However, the required `device_name` parameter gets no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 first sentence names a specific verb+resource ('link-quality diagnosis') and immediately positions it against the sibling `wireless_registrations`, noting it reads the same registration-table data but normalizes it per peer into a defined field set. An agent can distinguish this diagnostic read from the raw registration read without opening a schema.

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?

It states explicitly when to invoke: 'the read to run before AND after set_wireless_channel/set_wireless_tx_power/set_wireless_tuning to judge whether an RF change actually helped', naming the three sibling mutators by name. It also routes the agent on what to do with the results (CCQ and SNR are the numbers that matter).

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