getDashboardWifiSummary

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 only lists output fields without disclosing behavioral traits: no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or default behavior when siteId omitted. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the output components. No extraneous words or repetition. Every part 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values by listing key components. However, it lacks details on error cases, pagination, or how channel utilization is reported. For a simple tool with two optional params, this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a WiFi summary for a site dashboard, listing specific output components (total APs, connected AP count, wireless client count, channel utilization per band, SSID count). This distinguishes it from sibling dashboard tools like getDashboardOverview or getDashboardSwitchSummary.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getDashboardOverview or getClientDetail. The purpose is implied but lacks context such as 'use for a quick WiFi health overview' or exclusions for detailed client data.

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