get_access_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and 'List' does imply a read-only operation while 'optionally filtered to a site' describes a key behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens when neither org_id nor site_id is supplied, pagination behavior, or response characteristics.

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 sentence of ten words: 'List access points (APs) in an organization, optionally filtered to a site.' Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with 2 optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core list-and-filter behavior adequately. However, it omits how the target organization is determined when org_id is absent and does not acknowledge the related sibling get_offline_access_points, leaving gaps in the agent's contextual understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both org_id and site_id documented inline. The description adds a minor semantic gloss ('filtered to a site') that aligns with site_id, but it does not clarify parameter behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('access points (APs)'), and defines scope ('in an organization, optionally filtered to a site'). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named sibling tool get_offline_access_points.

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 such as get_offline_access_points, get_clients, or get_switches. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or how the organization is resolved when org_id is omitted, so an agent gets no selection help.

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