getDownlinkWiredDevices

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a list of devices with MAC addresses and connection details, indicating a read-only retrieval. It lacks mention of potential errors, permissions, or rate limits, but for a simple get operation, this is sufficient.

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 three concise sentences: first defines purpose, second describes output, third gives usage context. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.

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 (no output schema, 3 parameters), the description covers purpose, output (list of devices with details), and usage context (APs with LAN ports). It is complete for effective agent invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., apMac with format, siteId with config reference). The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 action 'Get wired downlink devices' and the resource 'connected to an access point's LAN port', distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on uplinks, general device info, etc.

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 provides context by noting it is useful for APs with built-in switch ports (e.g., EAP615-Wall), implying when to use. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to alternatives, but the specificity is adequate.

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