getApDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Fetch', but does not mention authorization, rate limits, side effects, or response volume. This is adequate but not thorough.

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: the first lists what the tool fetches (front-loaded purpose), the second provides a key usage hint. No wasted words.

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 expected return fields (model, firmware, etc.), which is sufficient for a fetch operation. It also covers prerequisite steps for parameters. Minor gap: no mention of response format (e.g., JSON).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the apMac (via listDevices) and siteId (via listSites, with default fallback), going beyond the schema's raw descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full configuration and status for a specific access point'), and lists concrete fields (model, firmware, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getApRadios, which fetch only partial data.

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 guides the user to 'Use listDevices to get the apMac', which is a prerequisite. However, it does not contrast with alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., when not to use).

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