vsz_list_ap_mesh_neighbors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, return format, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a production tool.

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 concise: a single sentence plus an Args block, with no fluff. It is easy to scan, but the Args block lacks structure such as types, defaults, or formatting, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present), the description is sufficient in length but lacking in context. It does not explain mesh topology behavior, contrast with LLDP neighbors, or any operational caveats. The output schema covers return values, but the missing usage guidance and behavioral details make this only moderately complete.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It provides short definitions for both parameters: 'vSZ controller IP or hostname' for host and 'AP MAC address' for ap_mac. This adds some clarity beyond the schema property names, but the definitions are not rich enough to specify formats, constraints, or examples, so it only partially compensates.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mesh neighbor APs discovered by an AP'). The parenthetical '(mesh topology)' and the contrast with sibling tool vsz_list_ap_lldp_neighbors make the purpose distinct and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied by the description — an agent would use this when needing mesh neighbors of an AP — but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like vsz_list_ap_lldp_neighbors or vsz_list_aps. No exclusions or criteria are provided, so it stops short of a fuller guideline.

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