getApRadios

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 real value by specifying what the response contains, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not address error handling or permission/site-access requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the capability and its payload, followed by the one prerequisite action. Every clause carries information; there is 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition supplies both the data returned and the prerequisite lookup, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the distinction from near-neighbor AP config tools is left unstated.

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 both the apMac hint ("Use listDevices to find AP MACs") and the siteId default behavior are already documented in the schema. The description's listDevices pointer therefore duplicates rather than extends the schema, 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 pairs a specific verb (get) and resource (radio status for an access point) with an enumeration of the actual data returned: 2.4GHz/5GHz band config, channel, TX power, channel utilization and per-radio client count. That detail implicitly separates it from config-oriented siblings like getRadiosConfig, though no sibling is ever named explicitly.

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 offers one workflow hint ("Use listDevices to get the apMac"), which helps the caller secure the required parameter, but it never states when to choose this tool over getRadiosConfig, getApDetail, or other AP-level getters. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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