get_ap_optimization

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation, and the description aligns with that. No additional behavioral details such as data freshness, required context, or relationship to AP optimization records are disclosed; however, the simple getter nature makes this acceptable.

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, direct sentence that clearly states the tool's action. It contains no redundant words or irrelevant details, making it highly concise.

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 zero-parameter schema, presence of an output schema, and read-only annotation, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. The term 'AP optimization status' is slightly vague but still understandable; it would be improved by a brief mention of what the status includes or how it relates to other optimization 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain parameter meaning. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is no parameter complexity to address.

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 优化状态' specifies the verb (get) and resource (AP optimization status), making the tool's purpose clear. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling getters like get_optimization_records or get_wireless_monitoring, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 alternatives. There are many related getter tools in the sibling list, but no context or exclusions are offered.

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