getApRadios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by describing data retrieval, but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, required permissions, or other behavioral aspects. The description adds moderate transparency by specifying the returned fields.

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 one sentence plus a succinct directive, front-loading the purpose without extra words. Every sentence earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the key data fields returned, giving a clear picture of the tool's output. For a three-parameter tool with moderate complexity, this provides sufficient completeness for an agent to understand the 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 coverage is 100%; the description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions. It reinforces the use of listDevices for the apMac parameter, which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 specifies that the tool retrieves radio status for a specific AP, listing concrete data elements (2.4GHz/5GHz config, channel, TX power, channel utilization, client count). It distinguishes from sibling tools that provide broader device details or configuration by focusing on per-AP radio status.

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 instructs users to use listDevices to obtain the apMac, which is helpful. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from similar tools like getRadiosConfig. Usage context is partially provided but without exclusions or alternatives.

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