getRadiosConfig

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 clearly describes a read operation ('Get') and details the return fields (band, channel, transmit power, channel width, enabled SSIDs). While it does not mention error conditions or authorization needs, the description is transparent enough about the tool's behavior for a straightforward get operation.

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, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence and providing sibling differentiation in the second. No extraneous information is present; every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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, the description adequately summarizes the return fields (per-radio settings for 2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz including band, channel, etc.). It explains the tool's scope, mentions prerequisites (apMac), and distinguishes from a sibling. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, the description is 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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds contextual value by suggesting how to obtain the apMac value ('Use listDevices') and noting that siteId defaults to the configured site. This goes beyond the schema alone, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 'Get per-radio configuration for an access point' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the included settings (band, channel, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool getApRadios, which returns runtime status instead of configuration.

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: 'Use getApRadios for runtime radio status; this returns configuration.' It also hints at prerequisite tooling for the apMac parameter ('Use listDevices to find AP MACs'), helping the agent choose correctly between similar tools.

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