vsz_get_ap_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose, with no additional context about side effects, permissions, data granularity, or potential errors. It's not misleading, but it's minimal.

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 two short lines plus an Args block. It's front-loaded and contains no filler. Perfectly concise.

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. The description covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage context or differentiation from sibling statistics tools like vsz_get_wlan_statistics. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description explains both parameters: host is the vSZ controller IP or hostname, ap_mac is the AP MAC address. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema, which has no descriptions. Since both parameters are covered, this is helpful.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving traffic statistics for a specific AP. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('traffic statistics' for a specific AP), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_get_ap (AP configuration) or vsz_get_ap_operational (operational status). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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