getSitesApsLoadBalance

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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on what the config contains, whether it requires the AP to be online, or any failure behavior. For a read-only getter the bar is lower, but zero added context earns a 2.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.

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?

A simple read-only getter with fully documented parameters and no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. However, 'load balance config' is left undefined, so the agent cannot anticipate what fields come back or how to interpret them.

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%, with apMac and siteId fully documented including format examples and discovery hints (listDevices, listSites). The description adds no parameter 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (load balance config) scoped to an AP, so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the many sibling getAp*Config tools (getApUplinkConfig, getApQosConfig, etc.), leaving the agent to infer which config this covers.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the numerous AP config getters. The agent must guess that this is the right tool for load-balance settings versus other AP config tools.

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