get_wifi_ap_id_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It lists error codes but doesn't explain meaning or when they occur. No mention of side effects, read-only nature (though implied by GET), or prerequisites. The tool likely reads data, but the description fails to confirm safety or behavior.

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 concise with the main purpose front-loaded in one sentence. The error code list is appended but not structured. It would benefit from grouping or explaining codes, but overall it's efficient.

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 likely returns a list of neighbor objects (with output schema available), the description doesn't explain what 'WifiNeighbor' entails, format, or empty results. The error codes lack context. For a tool that queries network state, this is insufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. The required parameter 'id' is not explained in the description. While the tool name includes 'ap_id', the description should clarify that 'id' refers to the AP identifier. Without this, the agent may misinterpret the parameter's role.

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 'Get the list of WifiNeighbor seen by the AP', specifying the verb (get) and resource (WifiNeighbor list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wifi_ap (AP info) and get_wifi_ap_id_stations (stations). However, it's terse and the error code list adds no purpose clarity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., post_wifi_ap_id_neighbors_scan for scanning). There are no when-not-to-use instructions or context for choosing this over other get_wifi tools.

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