getApDetail

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It describes the fetched data (model, firmware, etc.) but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, prerequisites beyond apMac discovery, or rate limits. The term 'Fetch' implies reading, but the behavioral context is 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?

Two sentences covering the essential return fields and a key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description lists specific return attributes (model, firmware, CPU/memory, clients, SSIDs, uptime, mesh status), offering a good picture of what to expect. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., nested object) and does not mention error handling or missing data scenarios. Still, it is reasonably complete for a fetch tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented. The description text does not add new parameter semantics; it only lists return attributes. Thus, no added value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches full configuration and status for a specific access point, listing specific attributes. This differentiates it from sibling getAp* tools that cover individual sub-configurations. Also advises to use listDevices to obtain the apMac, making purpose 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 only usage guidance is to use listDevices to get the apMac. There is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for specific AP configurations. The implication is that it's for a comprehensive overview, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use are discussed.

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