getSsidDetail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what content the response covers (security settings, rate limits, scheduling, advanced configurations), and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error behavior on invalid IDs, permission requirements, or response format — and with no annotations, those disclosures were needed.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 30 words, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and operational detail in the second. There is no filler; both sentences earn their place, and the format is scannable for an agent.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and two of three parameters but leaves siteId undocumented. The content-area list partially compensates for the missing output schema by telling the agent what fields to expect, but error/edge-case behavior and the optional parameter gap remain unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable provenance for two required parameters: wlanId originates from getWlanGroupList and ssidId from getSsidList. However, the optional siteId parameter is completely omitted from the description and remains unexplained in both the schema and the description — a real gap given zero schema-level documentation.

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 (detailed information for a specific SSID), and enumerates the content areas covered: security settings, rate limits, scheduling, and advanced configurations. The phrase 'specific SSID (wireless network)' differentiates it from list-style siblings like getSsidList, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides clear workflow context by naming the prerequisite calls: wlanId must come from getWlanGroupList and ssidId from getSsidList. This effectively routes the agent into the correct call sequence as the detail-fetch step after listing. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit comparison to alternative getters among the many siblings.

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