get_wifi_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is established without the description. The description adds one genuinely valuable behavioral fact beyond the structured fields: 'Never includes keys,' which tells the agent no PSK/credential material will be exposed. Beyond that, it mostly restates return contents that the output schema already covers, and it does not say what happens if Wi-Fi is disabled or how mesh nodes are counted.

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?

A single compact sentence-fragment with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It lacks a verb (e.g. 'Returns ...'), which slightly weakens scannability, but every clause names content the agent would want.

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?

A parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, so return structure need not be explained. The description covers the domain boundaries (radios, mesh, three network classes) and the key-omission caveat. Minor gaps: no note on empty/disabled states or on how it relates to list_connected_devices for client-level detail.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter expectations are created.

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?

Names the specific resources returned: physical radios per band, mesh state, and primary/guest/IoT networks with SSID, on/off, and security. It is clearly a read of the wireless summary rather than the router-wide status or the Wi-Fi mutators (set_wifi_radio, set_wifi_network), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as router_status for general health or set_wifi_radio/set_wifi_network for changes. The read-only nature and summary scope can be inferred, but nothing is stated to route the agent.

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