getDownlinkWiredDevices

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 indicates a read operation by returning a list of devices with MAC addresses and connection details, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions required, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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-loading the purpose and adding a brief example use case. Every sentence is informative and concise, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema. The description mentions return values (MAC addresses and connection details) but does not fully specify the output structure. It also omits error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., AP must have switch ports), or how connection details are formatted. For a moderate complexity tool, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add significant value beyond the schema; it only mentions MAC addresses and connection details, which are implied by the parameters. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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's purpose: 'Get wired downlink devices connected to an access point's LAN port.' It specifies the resource (wired downlink devices) and action (get), and it distinguishes well from sibling tools like getApUplinkConfig or getUplinkWiredDetail, which serve different functions.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Useful for APs with built-in switch ports (e.g. EAP615-Wall).' It implies that the tool is for APs with LAN ports acting as a switch, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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