getMeshStatistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation returning specific statistics, with no mention of destructive actions. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance impact, which would improve 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and use case.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned statistics (link quality, signal strength, throughput, hop count). It covers the main purpose and parameter discovery via schema comments. Minor gaps include lack of error conditions or edge cases, but overall it is complete for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 100%, and the schema includes meaningful descriptions for apMac (including a usage hint) and siteId (referring to listSites and default config). The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('mesh link statistics for an access point'), and the specific output fields (backhaul link quality, signal strength, throughput, hop count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getApDetail and getClient by focusing specifically on mesh statistics.

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 says 'Useful for diagnosing mesh network performance,' which implies a usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not conditions. The schema hints at using listDevices and listSites for parameter discovery, but no explicit usage guidance is given.

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