vsz_list_aps

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 behavioral disclosure. It states it lists all APs but does not reveal whether the operation might be heavy (e.g., paginated, large result), if it requires specific privileges, or if there are any side effects. The description essentially restates the obvious function without adding behavioral nuance.

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 and well-structured. It leads with the main purpose in a single sentence, followed by a clearly labeled Args block. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic 'what' and the parameter. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs. vsz_query_aps) and does not mention any behavioral caveats like output size or permissions. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps in guidance.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly explains the host parameter as 'vSZ controller IP or hostname.' This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw string type, and since it is the only parameter, it fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 action: 'List all access points managed by the vSZ controller.' This provides a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('access points'), and a scope ('all managed by vSZ'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_get_ap (which retrieves a specific AP) and vsz_query_aps (which implies querying with filters).

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 gives no explicit usage context or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over vsz_query_aps or vsz_get_ap, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Args' section only explains the host parameter.

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