getApGeneralConfig

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: this returns persisted configuration rather than live runtime state, and it names the specific categories of values returned, which helps an agent interpret the result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return contents, then the disambiguation. No filler, no restating of the tool name, and the sibling reference comes after the essential information rather than burying it.

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 output schema, the description takes on the job of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating representative fields plus the qualifier "other global AP parameters." Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs and safety annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the exact response shape remains unspecified.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including MAC format, an example value, the siteId default behavior, and pointers to listDevices and listSites. The description adds nothing about apMac or siteId beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Get general configuration for an access point") and then enumerates the concrete fields returned — device name, LED settings, country/region, management VLAN, bandwidth limits — so an agent knows exactly what class of data this yields versus siblings like getApRadios or getApVlanConfig.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from a sibling by naming the condition that selects it: "Use getApDetail for runtime status; this returns stored configuration." That is a clear when-to-use-this-instead statement, but no guidance is given relative to the many other AP config tools (getApUplinkConfig, getApSnmpConfig, getApQosConfig), which is why this falls short of a 5.

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