Get Ap Group Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the purpose—no information about authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but this description contributes nothing extra.

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, front-loaded phrase with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and there is no structural redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only getter with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It states what is retrieved; the output schema covers return details. A minor gap remains: it does not specify what 'AP group config' includes, but that is acceptable given the structured fields.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the empty schema is adequate for a parameterless getter.

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 '获取 AP 分组配置' states a specific verb (get) and resource (AP group configuration), distinguishing it from siblings like list_ap_devices or restart_ap. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other AP-related configuration tools (e.g., get_ac_status), so it falls 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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The description only implies usage by its name; there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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