getApGeneralConfig

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the description of returning configuration, which is acceptable but minimal.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence clearly states purpose and returned data, the second directs to an alternative tool. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description lists several specific configuration fields (device name, LED settings, etc.), which gives a good sense of the output despite lacking an output schema. However, it ends with 'and other global AP parameters', which is vague. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read tool with good sibling context.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('general configuration for an access point'), lists specific returned fields, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool getApDetail which returns runtime status instead.

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?

Description provides clear guidance: use this for stored configuration, use getApDetail for runtime status. It gives an explicit alternative but does not provide further when-not-to-use guidance.

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