List WLANs and SSIDs

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a non-destructive read, lowering the bar. The description adds the shape of the returned data (grouped WLAN groups with per-SSID attributes), which is real context since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about pagination, permissions, or whether an omitted/default site scope is applied.

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 compact clause with zero filler; the returned-field inventory is front-loaded immediately after the resource. It is efficient, though the sentence is a noun fragment rather than a complete statement of action.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and how it is grouped. It still leaves the optional siteId's semantics and any usage routing unexplained, which is a meaningful but not fatal gap at this 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?

There is one parameter (siteId, optional) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'on the site' gestures at site scoping but never names siteId, explains its format, or states what happens when it is omitted — the optional/default behavior is entirely undocumented.

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?

Identifies a specific resource pair — WLAN groups and the SSIDs nested inside them — along with the fields of interest (name, band, security, guest-network, VLAN). The verb is carried only implicitly by the title 'List WLANs and SSIDs'; the resource itself is distinct from omada_devices, omada_clients, and omada_sites, so no sibling confusion. Clear, though not a full verb+resource statement in the description body.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the SSID/WLAN-configuration listing tool rather than, say, omada_devices or a generic omada_call.

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