getMeshStatistics

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 value beyond that by disclosing the specific return fields (link quality, signal strength, throughput, hop count) in the absence of an output schema, and by implicitly scoping results to mesh-connected APs — behavior an agent needs to interpret empty or non-applicable results. It does not address what happens for a non-mesh AP or whether results are live vs. cached.

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 action and resource, followed by return fields and usage. Nothing is redundant, though the final sentence is the weakest and could be folded into the first.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned metrics and the mesh-only scope, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it. The remaining gap — non-mesh AP behavior and error/empty-result handling — is minor given the read-only annotations and fully documented schema.

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 includes a format pattern plus a pointer to listDevices, and siteId explains the OMADA_SITE_ID default and listSites. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get mesh link statistics for an access point") and enumerates the returned metrics, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from wired/uplink siblings by scoping to "mesh-connected APs," but never names an alternative tool such as getUplinkWiredDetail, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

"Useful for diagnosing mesh network performance" gives a general usage context but no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for wired-link diagnosis. The agent must infer that this only applies to mesh backhaul APs from the return-field list rather than from a stated condition.

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