getUplinkWiredDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes what is returned but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a tool returning network details, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and provides immediate value. Every sentence serves a purpose—no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return structure. It lists key fields (switch, port, speed, PoE), which is adequate for a network topology tool, though lacking details like data types or example values. The moderate complexity and presence of 3 parameters are well-addressed.

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%, with all three parameters documented via pattern, description, and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the format of apMac or the fallback behavior of siteId is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool gets wired uplink detail for an access point, specifying the resource (AP's Ethernet uplink) and the types of information returned (connected switch, port number, link speed, PoE status). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like getApDetail or getApGeneralConfig, which cover broader AP information.

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 mentions usefulness for mapping physical network topology, implying a context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving agents to infer usage from the tool's name and domain.

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