getApVlanConfig

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 without description help. The description adds that the response shape includes management VLAN plus per-SSID tagging, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens when VLANs are unconfigured, whether settings are inherited from a site profile, or any permission requirements.

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 purpose followed by return contents and then a usage note. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool, the definition plus annotations plus fully documented schema covers nearly everything an agent needs, and the description even compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. The only shortfall is the absence of failure-mode or fallback behavior when VLAN data is absent.

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%: apMac's format, an example, and the pointer to listDevices, plus siteId's default-from-OMADA_SITE_ID fallback and the listSites pointer, are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get VLAN configuration for an access point') and enumerates what is returned ('management VLAN and per-SSID VLAN tagging settings'), which cleanly separates it from sibling config readers like getApUplinkConfig, getApGeneralConfig, or getApQosConfig. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by domain rather than stated.

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 clause 'Useful for verifying network segmentation on wireless infrastructure' gives a concrete use context, which is better than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of adjacent tools (e.g. use getApGeneralConfig for broader AP settings), and no prerequisites such as the AP needing to be online or the site needing to be selected.

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