get_wifi_ap_id_channel_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the function and error codes, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The error code list is not behavioral transparency.

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 a long list of error codes that may be unnecessary for agent decision-making. It is functional but could be more concise by omitting or abbreviating the error list.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. However, the description does not mention the output schema or explain what WifiChannelUsage contains. Context from siblings helps, but the description itself could be more 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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'id' represents (likely the AP ID). With only one parameter, the description should clarify its semantics, but it fails to do so.

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 the list') and the resource ('WifiChannelUsage for the given AP'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wifi_ap_id_stations and get_wifi_ap_id_neighbors by specifying exactly what is retrieved.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists error codes, which are not usage guidelines. The agent must infer from the tool name and siblings, but the description itself lacks explicit context.

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