vsz_list_rogue_aps

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, or response behavior. It only states the basic action and arguments, omitting any details about filtering semantics, pagination, or authorization requirements.

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 front-loaded: a single-purpose sentence followed by a clean Args block. There is no 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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks usage context and alternative differentiation. It covers the basics but would benefit from specifying when to use it and what filter options exist.

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 Args block adds meaningful semantics to both parameters: 'host' is defined as the controller IP/hostname, and 'filters' as a JSON string. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it remains terse without examples or supported filter keys.

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 starts with a clear action-verb phrase 'List detected rogue access points', which precisely states the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsz_list_aps (all APs) and vsz_mark_rogue.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vsz_query_aps or vsz_list_aps. The description only states what it does without any contextual hints.

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