mesh_uebersicht

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does imply a passive read by describing only returned attributes, but it never says the call is non-destructive or side-effect free. Nothing about what happens when no mesh nodes exist, whether data is cached/polled, or any rate/permission constraints is disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and then lists the returned facets without filler. Every clause maps to real content an agent would care about.

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?

For a zero-argument read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope and the shape of the result, which is essentially enough to call it. The only shortfall is the missing routing hint relative to wlan_status and zugang_pruefen.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; the schema is also fully described. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none is needed, and instead spends its words on the reported fields.

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?

Names a specific resource scope ('Alle Mesh-Zugangspunkte') and enumerates exactly what is reported per access point (role, uplink rates, channel/bandwidth/utilization per radio, client count), so an agent can tell this is the mesh-topology inventory. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby wlan_status or geraet siblings, and the verb ('list/return') stays implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this over wlan_status (single-radio WLAN state) or zugang_pruefen (access check), and no preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase.

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