getApIpv6Config

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. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say what the returned IPv6 config contains, what happens if IPv6 is disabled or the AP is unreachable, or whether site scoping changes results. It essentially restates the tool name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or repetition. Nothing in it is wasted, though there is also very little of 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?

For a two-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the minimum needed to call the tool is present. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place to say what the IPv6 config response looks like or how failures surface, and it says neither.

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%, so both apMac (with pattern, example format, and a pointer to listDevices) and siteId (default from OMADA_SITE_ID, pointer to listSites) are fully documented structurally. The description adds only the phrase "specific access point" and says nothing about site targeting, 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?

"Get IPv6 configuration for a specific access point" gives a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (IPv6 configuration), and a scope (per-AP). It is separable from adjacent AP getters such as getApGeneralConfig or getApVlanConfig by resource noun, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 is only implied: the phrase "for a specific access point" signals that an AP identity is required, and the schema's apMac description carries the routing hint (use listDevices). The description itself states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g. IPv6 must be enabled on the AP/site), and no alternatives to prefer for general or VLAN config.

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