getRFScanResult

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns stored (not fresh) results and is deprecated. It does not cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, but it provides key behavioral information for a simple read operation.

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: the first announces deprecation and purpose, the second adds prerequisite and return data context. Every word is necessary; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the data categories returned (neighboring networks, utilization, interference, RSSI). It also explains the prerequisite flow. It lacks details on empty results or error states, but for a straightforward retrieval tool with 3 well-documented parameters, it is adequately complete.

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 has 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for apMac, siteId, and customHeaders. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the prerequisite mention of triggerRfScan, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the last RF scan results for an access point, a specific verb+resource. It lists the data types returned (neighboring networks, channel utilization, interference, RSSI). The name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like getApDetail or getApRadios.

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 explicitly deprecates the tool, warns users, and provides a prerequisite: use triggerRfScan first to get fresh results. This gives clear usage context. It does not, however, mention alternatives for the deprecated endpoint or when not to use it.

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