Get Wireless Monitoring

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, and an output schema exists so the return shape is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the content scope (AP count / online status), which is modest value but not rich behavioral 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 front-loaded fragment with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of being a label rather than a sentence, but it conveys the essential scope efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, read-only, output schema present), so the description's job is narrow and it largely meets it by stating what is returned. The main omission is routing guidance among the many monitoring siblings, which is minor given the low complexity.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no coverage gap to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (wireless monitoring) plus the scope of what it returns (AP count / online status). This distinguishes it partially from siblings like get_ap_devices or get_ac_status, but it never explicitly names what it is not, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative monitoring tools. With many overlapping siblings (get_ac_status, get_ap_optimization, get_load_monitoring), the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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