iap_get_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Return,' implying a read operation, but does not explain whether the summary is fetched live, what data it contains, whether authentication is needed, or how the optional parameters influence 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is somewhat under-specified; however, for such a simple tool, this level of brevity is still reasonably 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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks critical context for a 2-parameter tool. It does not state what a 'summary' includes, whether both parameters are mutually exclusive, or what happens when neither is provided. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 does not mention either parameter (iap_ip_addr, cluster_name). The tool text fails to explain how to use these parameters or how they affect the summary, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names with no semantic context.

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 a clear resource ('Instant AP swarm summary'), making the tool's core function understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the 'swarm summary' resource is distinct enough among the IAP_* list.

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 offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like iap_get_health_summary or iap_get_access_points. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without routing information.

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