iap_get_ap_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return statistics' implies a read-only operation but says nothing about what the statistics cover, how the AP is reached, or failure modes. The output schema covers return shape, not operational 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 concise sentence immediately states the action and target with no wasted words. It could carry more helpful detail without becoming verbose, but it is well structured.

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?

With no annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and a large sibling set, the one-line description is insufficient to fully guide tool selection and invocation. Output schema mitigates return uncertainty, but parameter disambiguation and usage context remain unresolved.

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 only says 'by its IP address' without resolving whether ap_ip_address or iap_ip_addr should be used. cluster_name is not mentioned, leaving an ambiguous parameter surface for the agent.

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 returns statistics for a single Instant AP, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'one Instant AP by its IP address' distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like iap_get_access_points, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need statistics for a specific AP by IP, rather than listing APs or getting cluster-level summary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternativ routing.

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