getSitesApsIpSetting

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the implicit read-only nature. It fails to mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it could be expanded slightly to include more context without losing brevity.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the structure of the returned IP settings (e.g., IP address, subnet mask, gateway). It does not, making it incomplete for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions in the schema already provide, such as the format of apMac or the default behavior of siteId.

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 that the tool retrieves IP settings for an access point, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like getApIpv6Config or getApGeneralConfig, which might overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which other tools should be preferred.

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