getMeshStatistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and describes the output fields (backhaul link quality, signal strength, throughput, hop count). It does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a read operation the provided information is adequate.

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 consists of two short sentences, no redundant words, and is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its use case. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., mesh-enabled APs must exist) and does not explain the structure of the return value beyond listing fields. However, for a straightforward read tool this is acceptable.

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%: all three parameters have descriptive schema entries (siteId, customHeaders, apMac). The tool description does not elaborate on parameters further; it focuses on the return value. The description adds context about the default behavior of siteId and references to listSites and listDevices, but these are already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the resource 'mesh link statistics for an access point', and specifies the returned fields (link quality, signal strength, throughput, hop count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getCableTestFullResults or getRFScanResult that focus on other diagnostics.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for diagnosing mesh network performance', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., getNetworkHealthSummary). A direct reference to when not to use this tool would improve clarity.

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