get_wifi_ap_id_allowed_channel_comb

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 lists error codes, which hints at potential issues, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. Missing behavioral context beyond error codes.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The list of error codes is appended but adds useful detail without unnecessary verbosity. Every part earns its place.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description provides basic purpose and error codes. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites, side effects, or success criteria. Error codes partially compensate, but it is minimally viable.

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 description adds meaning to the lone parameter 'id' by specifying it is 'the given ap id'. Since the schema provides no description coverage (0%), this clarification is valuable and helps the agent understand what to provide.

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 action (Get) and the resource (WifiAllowedComb for the given ap id). It is specific and directly matches the tool name, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_wifi_ap_id or get_wifi_ap_id_channel_usage.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does without any comparative guidance.

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