Get AP radio & channel state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden — but it adds almost nothing on top. It does not mention that includeRfScan defaults to true (a potentially slow scan) or any latency/cost implications, which would be the useful behavioral context here.

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?

It is short, but it ends in an ellipsis and reads as a truncated blurb rather than a complete statement. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not from disciplined editing.

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, but for a tool with four undocumented parameters, an RF-scan flag defaulting to true, and no guidance versus get_rf_scan, the definition is far too thin to call safely.

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% across four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Critical semantics — the required MAC format, the optional site scoping, and what toggling includeRfScan or includeAvailableChannels actually does — are documented nowhere.

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?

"Inspect an AP's 2.4G/5G/5G2/6G radios" names a specific verb and resource, and the field list (channel, width, TX power, utilization, interference) tells the agent exactly what data comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_rf_scan or get_device, which sound adjacent.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone whether to call this or get_rf_scan/get_device when investigating RF conditions.

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