getApLldpConfig

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns enabled state and advertised TLVs, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, authorization requirements, or rate limits. The background on LLDP is informative.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and return values; the second provides useful background on LLDP. Excellent front-loading.

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?

For a simple 'get config' tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It mentions the key return fields and provides context about LLDP. It could add more about error handling or prerequisites, but is adequate.

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 all parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on how parameters affect the request or provide examples beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get LLDP configuration for an access point' and specifies the return values (enabled state and advertised TLVs). It distinguishes from siblings like getApGeneralConfig by naming the specific protocol, but does not explicitly differentiate from other getAp*Config tools.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools (e.g., getApGeneralConfig for general config). The description is purely descriptive.

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