wake_on_lan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the action and direction (from KVM to MAC) but does not disclose network prerequisites, expected side effects, whether the call is fire-and-forget, or what happens on invalid/unreachable MAC.

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?

One tight sentence with no redundant or filler content, front-loading the action and target.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. However, with no annotations and no usage/prerequisite details, the description is only minimally sufficient for reliable invocation (e.g., MAC format and WoL network requirements are left implicit).

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 single mac_address parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description names it as 'the given MAC address' but adds no format, validation, or accepted delimiter semantics beyond the parameter name.

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?

States a specific verb (Send) and resource (Wake-on-LAN magic packet), plus the source (KVM) and target (MAC address). This distinguishes it from sibling KVM input/control tools and from generic power operations.

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 implies the usage scenario (waking a machine via Wake-on-LAN) but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives such as power or mount_media_* tools. For a single-purpose network action this is mostly self-evident, but it leaves prerequisites such as WoL support unstated.

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