get_hotspot_link_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose the key error condition (device must be in hotspot mode) plus what the tool reports. It does not add details on read-only behavior, but the name and wording make that inferable.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler; the purpose is first, followed by output details and the key limitation. Every sentence adds usable information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers scope, returned metrics, the failure mode, and parameter behavior, leaving no gap an agent needs before calling it.

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 single parameter iface is explained beyond the schema: it is an optional AP interface name and is auto-detected if omitted. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

States a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'per-station link statistics for hotspot AP clients,' and names the concrete data reported (signal, rates, retries). This clearly distinguishes it from generic interface-stat tools like get_interface_link_stats.

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?

Describes the intended scope: hotspot AP clients. The error-if-not-in-hotspot-mode statement tells the agent when the tool is not applicable, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for non-hotspot cases.

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