getApUplinkConfig

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 then adds value by disclosing what the payload contains (uplink mode, preferred uplink settings, failover configuration) and scoping it to a single access point. It stops short of noting any permission, rate-limit, or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive given the lower bar annotations set.

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 verb and resource, then the return contents, then the use case. No filler or repetition, though the second and third sentences could be tightened into one.

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, so the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields. Combined with annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, an agent has nearly everything needed; only the sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 parameters (apMac, siteId) are documented in the schema itself, including the format example and pointers to listDevices/listSites. The description adds no further meaning about parameters, 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 names a specific verb and resource (get the uplink configuration for an access point) and enumerates the returned facets: uplink mode (wired/wireless mesh), preferred uplink settings, and failover configuration. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as getUplinkWiredDetail or getMeshStatistics, which cover overlapping territory.

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 closing sentence 'Useful for understanding mesh topology and wired uplink assignments' implies a context for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. An agent facing the many AP and uplink siblings must infer the boundary itself.

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