getApVlanConfig

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

The description discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the returned data (management VLAN, per-SSID VLAN tagging). With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure; it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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 very concise—two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with useful context on return values and use case.

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 covers the main purpose, what is returned, and a practical use case. Although no output schema exists, the description adequately describes the return. It could be improved by noting potential error conditions or prerequisites, but overall it is sufficient for a simple getter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it mentions the tool's output but not parameter-specific details.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Get VLAN configuration') and resource (access point). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on VLAN-specific settings, but does not explicitly contrast with other AP getters like getApGeneralConfig or getApUplinkConfig.

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 a use case ('useful for verifying network segmentation on wireless infrastructure'), implying when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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