getSitesApsAvailableChannel

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds only the basic notion of retrieving available channels and does not explain the return shape, whether results are per radio/band, prerequisites, or any rate/permission behavior.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise and easy to scan, even though brevity contributes to gaps assessed under other dimensions.

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 with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. However, it does not characterize the returned 'available channels' data and has no output schema to compensate, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent invoking it.

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%, so the schema already documents both apMac and siteId in detail, including examples and discovery hints. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting available channels for an AP. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from related siblings such as getSitesApsChannelLimit or getApRadios.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The only usage information is implied by the phrase 'for an AP', which is insufficient given the many adjacent channel, radio, and AP-configuration tools.

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