getDownlinkWiredDevices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list of devices with MAC addresses and connection details, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., if an AP doesn't have switch ports), or whether data is live or cached.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or wasted words.

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 is adequate for a simple tool with well-documented parameters, but lacks completeness due to no output schema. It mentions return content but not structure, and does not cover potential errors, limitations, or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions return values (device MACs) but not parameter details. The schema already thoroughly describes the three parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and specific resource 'wired downlink devices connected to an access point's LAN port'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on wired downlink devices, which is unique among the many get commands for APs.

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 a clear context by specifying it is useful for APs with built-in switch ports (e.g., EAP615-Wall). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though it is implied that it is for wired downlink devices only.

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