getSitesApsPowerSaving

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Get power saving config for an AP.' It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether errors occur for unsupported APs, or any prerequisites. The name implies a read, but formal transparency is lacking.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place but could be expanded to include context about the return format or usage notes without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite only 3 parameters, the description omits details about the return value (no output schema) and possible error conditions. The tool would benefit from explaining what the power saving config contains or how to interpret responses.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the action. Baseline 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 'Get power saving config for an AP.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getApRadios. It directly states what the tool retrieves.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other AP config tools). The only implicit hint is in the input schema's apMac description referencing listDevices, but that does not address usage context or exclusions.

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