iap_analyze_wlan_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation and 'deterministic' adds a repeatability trait, but the description does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects or disclose any prerequisites, freshness, or failure behavior.

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, grammatically direct sentence that front-loads the action and result. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 output schema covers return shape, but the tool has no annotations and no parameter guidance. The description does not clarify how 'configured networks' are identified, whether the optional parameters are mutually exclusive, or what the determinism guarantee means in practice. This is too thin for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description says nothing about iap_ip_addr or cluster_name. It does not explain whether either parameter is required, how they select the target, or what happens when both are null, leaving the agent with no semantic help beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('WLAN security findings'), and a scope ('configured networks'). This differentiates it from the sibling get_* tools, which describe raw network data rather than security findings.

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 does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings like iap_get_networks, iap_get_network_detail, or iap_show_command. There is no explicit condition, exclusion, or alternative mentioned, so the agent gets no routing guidance.

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