listSitesApsPorts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states 'List ports on an AP.' It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's function without extraneous text, though it omits details that could aid selection.

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?

Despite having three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about the returned data (e.g., port status, speed) and does not help an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate compared to many sibling tools. The minimal description leaves gaps for effective decision-making.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no further semantic nuance beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'ports on an AP', making the tool's function obvious. It differentiates from sibling tools like getGatewayPorts and getStackPorts by specifically targeting AP ports.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listSitesCableTestSwitchesPorts or getApDetail. There are no prerequisites or usage scenarios mentioned beyond the parameter hints in the schema.

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