getApDetail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response is a composite of configuration plus live status, but says nothing about latency, partial availability when an AP is offline, or error behavior for an unknown MAC.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the field inventory is front-loaded so an agent knows immediately whether this tool answers its question, and the prerequisite hint follows. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the principal returned fields, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile while the schema covers both parameters. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both apMac (with pattern and example) and siteId (with the OMADA_SITE_ID default and listSites pointer). The description's 'Use listDevices to get the apMac' merely restates the schema's apMac description, adding no new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full configuration and status for a specific access point') and enumerates the returned data (model, firmware, CPU/memory, client count, SSIDs, uptime, mesh status). That enumeration implicitly separates it from the many narrow siblings such as getApRadios, getApQosConfig and getApGeneralConfig, which return only one slice of AP data.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: 'Use listDevices to get the apMac,' which is exactly the step an agent needs before calling. It does not state when to prefer the narrow config tools (getApRadios, getApVlanConfig) over this aggregate view, so an explicit exclusion is missing.

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