wifi_scan

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

The description adds that scanning uses local hardware and returns specific fields. However, given annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (potential system impact) and idempotentHint=false, the description could elaborate on side effects like network disruption or detection risk.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose and return data, second provides crucial usage constraint. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description lists the returned fields sufficiently. It doesn't cover administrative privileges or ordering, but for a simple scanning tool the information is adequate.

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?

With no parameters in the input schema (100% coverage trivially), the description's explanation of what the tool does and returns adds meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans Wi-Fi networks and lists specific return fields (SSID, BSSID, signal strength, channel, security type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bluetooth_scan or port_scan by focusing on Wi-Fi specific data.

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?

Explicitly notes requirement for physical Wi-Fi hardware and that Claude cannot perform it remotely. This provides a clear condition for when to use or avoid the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools for remote scanning.

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