wake_on_lan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it describes the write/guarded nature, the environment gate, the preview-vs-send confirmation flow, and the fact that interface existence is not pre-validated and may fail at send time.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and most sentences carry useful operational context. It is somewhat lengthy and includes a line-break-heavy aside, but the information is relevant rather than redundant.

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 an unannotated write tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical safety and invocation behavior: write gating, confirmation semantics, and post-validation limitations. The main remaining gap is `device_name` semantics, which is left to the schema despite the 0% schema description coverage.

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 for all four parameters. It meaningfully explains `mac_address`, `interface`, and `confirm`, but omits `device_name` entirely and gives no format details for the MAC or interface values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: sending a Wake-on-LAN magic packet via `/tool/wol` for a given MAC address and interface. It clearly distinguishes this action from the many read and configuration-write siblings by naming the exact RouterOS operation.

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 gives clear invocation guidance: use `confirm=False` for preview, then `confirm=True` to send, and note that the tool is blocked unless `MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true`. It does not name alternatives, but there is no obvious sibling substitute for Wake-on-LAN.

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