getDot1xConfig

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds real value by naming the returned fields (enabled state, mode, RADIUS server settings), but says nothing about scoping behavior, error cases when dot1x is unconfigured, or fallback to the default site.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that puts the resource before the return payload, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it could have used the remaining space to route against the sibling tool.

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 read-only getter with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nesting, the description covers the essentials and even previews the response shape. The main missing piece is disambiguation from getSwitchDot1xSetting.

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 the single optional siteId parameter is fully documented there, including the OMADA_SITE_ID default and the listSites discovery path. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Get') plus the exact resource ('802.1X (dot1x) authentication configuration for a site') and enumerates what is included (enabled state, authentication mode, RADIUS server settings). This is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool getSwitchDot1xSetting, so an agent cannot resolve the near-duplicate dot1x getters from the description alone.

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 description offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling getSwitchDot1xSetting that appears to cover overlapping ground. The only usage hint in the whole definition lives in the input schema (listSites for discovering site IDs), not the description.

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