getDownlinkWiredDevices

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a device list containing MAC addresses and connection details, but says nothing about empty results, pagination, or permissions.

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: what it returns, how the devices are connected, and when it is relevant. The purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, and applicability. The phrase 'connection details' remains vague about the actual fields returned, which is the only real gap.

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 format and the siteId default/fallback are fully documented in the schema, including pointers to listDevices and listSites. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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 and resource: get wired downlink devices on an AP's LAN port. The word 'downlink' plus 'using the AP as a wired switch' clearly separates this from uplink-oriented siblings such as getUplinkWiredDetail and from general device lists like listDevices.

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?

Gives a usable context: 'Useful for APs with built-in switch ports (e.g. EAP615-Wall)', which tells the agent when this applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. for wireless clients or uplink ports).

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