getRadiosConfig

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 useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned configuration fields and contrasting configuration versus runtime state, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but neither is material for a per-AP read.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return contents and then the disambiguation from the sibling. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned settings, and it covers the distinction from the closest sibling plus the MAC prerequisite via the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be 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 including format and discovery hints in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get per-radio configuration for an access point') and immediately clarifies the returned data (band, channel, transmit power, channel width, enabled SSIDs). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling getApRadios, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

It names the alternative (getApRadios) and states the exact condition that selects it: runtime radio status versus configuration. The schema also points to listDevices for obtaining the apMac, covering the prerequisite for invocation.

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