list_innerspace_access_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a ValueError is raised when the cloud API is not enabled or console_id is empty, and does not clarify read-only status, side effects, pagination, or other operational traits. The mention of a 'settings' argument that is absent from the schema further weakens 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 short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. However, the Args block includes a non-existent 'settings' parameter and the Raises section is only marginally informative, so not every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter list tool, the description covers the required console_id and one error condition, but it omits the schema's controller parameter and contains a misleading settings parameter, leaving the definition only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 50%. The description usefully documents console_id as a Cloud Connector console UUID from list_hosts, but it omits the controller parameter entirely and incorrectly lists 'settings: Application settings,' which does not exist in the input schema. This introduces confusion rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list access points known to InnerSpace on a console. It distinguishes this from other list_innerspace_* siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_innerspace_switches or list_hosts.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only notes that console_id comes from list_hosts, which helps locate a required value but does not explain when this tool should be chosen over sibling list tools.

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