iap_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that results are returned in pages and the operation is a read ('Return'), which is useful. However, it omits how iap_ip_addr vs cluster_name affects the result set, what 'include_extra' does, and whether any state changes occur.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is concise, but leans toward under-specification; the structure does not include parameter context or usage guidance that could be added without much bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description does not explain how the five optional parameters work, how they are combined, or how pagination is controlled. Given moderate complexity and multiple selection-related parameters, the description is not complete enough 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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at pagination via 'one page at a time,' which weakly relates to limit and offset, but it gives no explanation of iap_ip_addr, cluster_name, or include_extra. The parameter names in the schema are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds little semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource 'Instant AP swarm members' with the qualifier 'with radio state' and 'one page at a time' to convey the core function. It is clear enough to distinguish from client/network tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from AP-related siblings like iap_get_ap_stats.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of preconditions or target selection, and no exclusionary criteria. With 17 siblings, an agent would be unable to choose this tool over similar AP-focused tools without additional context.

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