getSitesApsChannelLimit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but omits details like potential errors (e.g., AP not found), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The lack of output schema further reduces transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and contains no unnecessary words. While it could be slightly expanded to include return value hints, it is concise and efficient.

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 simplicity (three parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks information about the return format or any side effects, which is important since there is no output schema. For a getter, some context on what 'channel limit config' includes would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's thoroughness.

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 'Get channel limit config for an AP.' clearly specifies the verb (Get) and resource (channel limit config for an AP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getApsAvailableChannel or getApsBridge by focusing specifically on channel limit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other AP configuration getters. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the AP to exist or the need for certain permissions, nor does it explain when the channel limit config is relevant.

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