vsz_get_wlan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get' and does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what the response contains. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but beyond that, the behavior is opaque.

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 a single sentence plus a compact Args block, with no redundant phrasing or filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose and lists parameters efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it very concise and well-structured.

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 description, combined with the output schema and parameter list, gives enough information for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, and with no annotations, an agent may be uncertain about side effects or response format. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: host is 'vSZ controller IP or hostname', and the IDs are clearly marked as UUIDs. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names, which lack descriptions. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what values to supply.

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 states a clear action ('Get') and resource ('WLAN configuration details'), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_get_wlan_statistics. However, it does not explicitly call out this distinction, and the phrase 'configuration details' could be slightly ambiguous compared to other WLAN-related getters. Overall, it is specific but not as rich as a fully differentiating description.

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, such as when to prefer it over vsz_get_wlan_statistics or vsz_list_wlans. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested contexts. It simply states the function, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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