getRadiosConfig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the return type (configuration) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or free of side effects. It also does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 long with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides differentiation from a sibling tool. 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 tool's moderate complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description lists the return fields (band, channel, etc.) and mentions the radio bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, 6GHz). It does not describe the structure of the output or note whether all radios are always present, but it provides sufficient context for typical use.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds limited semantic value beyond listing the returned fields. The description mentions 'band, channel, transmit power, channel width, and enabled SSIDs' which aligns with the parameters but does not elaborate on how parameters affect behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('per-radio configuration for an access point'), listing detailed settings (band, channel, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'getApRadios' by noting it returns configuration vs runtime status.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Returns configuration') and when to use an alternative ('Use getApRadios for runtime radio status'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention scenarios to avoid using this tool or prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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