getMeshStatistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It describes what data is returned but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is inadequate for safe agent invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action and output. Every sentence adds value, aligning with best practices for tool descriptions.

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?

The description lists the key return data (link quality, signal strength, throughput, hop count) but does not specify the output structure or format. With no output schema, additional detail about the return shape would improve completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, including examples and references. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 mesh link statistics for an access point, specifically returning quality, strength, throughput, and hop count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide general AP details or other specific configurations, as none explicitly target mesh statistics.

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 indicates the tool is 'useful for diagnosing mesh network performance,' providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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