getRadiosConfig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns but does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential side effects. The verb 'get' implies a safe read operation, but the description could be more transparent.

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 two sentences long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the key differentiation with the sibling tool. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 fields returned (band, channel, transmit power, etc.) and provides context on parameters. Without an output schema, it does a good job describing what to expect. It could add details on error handling or output structure, but it is adequate for a simple configuration retrieval.

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%, and the description adds valuable context beyond the schema: for apMac it suggests using listDevices, and for siteId it explains default behavior and suggests listSites. This enhances the semantics beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'per-radio configuration for an access point', and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool getApRadios by specifying that this returns configuration while getApRadios returns runtime status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative getApRadios, stating 'Use getApRadios for runtime radio status; this returns configuration.' This clearly differentiates the use case.

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