vsz_get_ap_operational

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency. It discloses the type of data returned (uptime, clients, status) but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor mention any permission requirements or failure modes. The 'get' verb implies non-destructive behavior, but the description could be more explicit.

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 description is one sentence plus a structured Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no extraneous words.

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 two parameters and an output schema present, so no need to describe return values. The description covers purpose and parameters adequately, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, which are addressed in other dimensions. Overall, it's sufficient.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section defines both parameters: host as vSZ controller IP/hostname and ap_mac as AP MAC address. This fully compensates for the schema gap, though it lacks format details for ap_mac.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('operational information of an AP') with clarifying examples (uptime, clients, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_get_ap (general AP details) and vsz_get_ap_statistics.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The description implies it is for operational state (uptime, clients, status) but does not contrast with vsz_get_ap or vsz_get_ap_statistics, leaving some ambiguity.

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