getApUplinkConfig

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific data (uplink mode, settings, failover) and implies it is a read operation. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, but the stated purpose is transparent enough.

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: first states purpose and returns, second adds usage context. No redundancy, front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains return values at a high level (mode, settings, failover). This is adequate for most use cases, though details on data types or structure are missing. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 each parameter described in the schema (siteId includes default behavior, apMac includes pattern and reference to listDevices, customHeaders is explained). The description adds no further parameter details, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves uplink configuration for an access point, listing specific return fields (mode, settings, failover). It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like getApDetail or getUplinkWiredDetail by focusing on uplink config.

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 mentions it is useful for understanding mesh topology and wired uplink assignments, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives like getUplinkWiredDetail or getMeshStatistics.

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