getDashboardWifiSummary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what data is returned but does not mention that the operation is read-only, any permissions required, or potential side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields. Every word is meaningful; no wasted text.

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 description lists the returned data points, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., JSON structure, data types) since there is no output schema. With nested objects implied, completeness is moderate; agent may need to infer exact response structure.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters (siteId and customHeaders). The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieves a WiFi summary for a site dashboard and lists specific data points (total APs, connected AP count, wireless client count, channel utilization per band, SSID count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getDashboardSwitchSummary and getDashboardOverview by specifying 'WiFi' summary.

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 implies usage for obtaining WiFi summary data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getApDetail for individual AP details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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