getApQosConfig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the purpose and does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires no special permissions, or any other behavioral aspects. The lack of transparency is significant for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with only 10 words. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

Given no output schema and a simple read operation, the description is minimally viable but lacks context about return format, error handling, or any side effects. It could be more helpful by stating that the QoS configuration is returned, but it does not.

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%—all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 'Get QoS configuration for a specific access point' clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'QoS configuration', and the scope 'for a specific access point'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getApIpv6Config.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other getAp* tools). The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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