get_wifi_ap_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists numerous error codes, hinting at possible failure modes, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The error codes add some transparency but are not explained.

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 short but includes an extensive list of error codes that are not explained, making it somewhat cluttered. It could be more concise by grouping error codes or providing common categories, but the overall length is acceptable.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks context about what a WifiAp is, how the id relates to other tools, or prerequisites. The error codes are provided without explanation, reducing completeness for a tool with a specific resource.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'id' parameter, and the description only repeats 'with the requested id' without adding definition, format, or example. This leaves the parameter meaning vague, especially as a string without further context.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'WifiAp' with the parameter 'id', making the tool's specific action unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wifi_ap' which likely retrieves all APs.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wifi_ap' or other get_* tools. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but without explicit context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage.

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