iap_get_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the core function and adds no context about what happens when parameters are omitted, whether both parameters can be used together, or any network/error behavior. This provides minimal transparency beyond the obvious read operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear without any unnecessary details.

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?

This is a simple read-style tool with an output schema, so return-value documentation is covered elsewhere. However, the description does not clarify how the two optional parameters relate or whether at least one is expected, leaving a meaningful gap for correct 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 does not mention iap_ip_addr or cluster_name at all. Since the schema only provides names and types, the agent gets no guidance on how to choose or combine these parameters, and the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specific resource ('Instant AP firmware version information'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like iap_get_summary or iap_get_access_points. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving firmware version details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of other iap_get_* tools, nor does it explain whether iap_ip_addr and cluster_name are alternatives, combined, or optional fallbacks. The usage context is only lightly implied by the tool name and description.

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