Get Ac Status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not the sole carrier of the safety profile. It adds only that the payload centres on AP counts and online counts, which is largely duplicative of the existing output schema, so it clears the lower bar without contributing much behavioural context.

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 short phrase with the resource first and the returned content in parentheses; no filler, no restatement of the title beyond what is needed. Well front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly; return-value detail is legitimately delegated to the output schema. The only gap is the absence of any routing context relative to sibling status tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-related information is missing.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('获取 AC 控制器状态') and narrows scope further with '(AP 数量/在线数)', so an agent knows exactly what is being retrieved. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from neighbouring status tools such as get_system_overview or list_ap_devices, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_overview, list_ap_devices, or get_ap_group_config, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred purely from the resource name.

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