getApDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the fetched data but does not mention that the tool is read-only, required permissions, or any potential side effects. The description is acceptable but not detailed enough to fully inform an AI agent about behavioral expectations.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and a prerequisite. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary text. It is optimally sized for quick reading.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable summary of returned fields (model, firmware, CPU/memory, etc.). However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that the output is a JSON object and mentioning any pagination or response structure.

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 itself provides parameter details. The description adds no new information beyond repeating the schema's guidance (e.g., 'use listDevices to get the apMac'). It does not enhance understanding beyond what the input schema already offers.

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 tool fetches full configuration and status for a specific access point, listing key data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific sub-configurations (e.g., getApGeneralConfig, getApRadios). The verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'access point' are explicit.

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 a prerequisite: 'Use listDevices to get the apMac.' However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative sibling tools like getApGeneralConfig or getApRadios. This lack of comparison reduces its usefulness for tool selection.

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