getSitesApsPowerSaving

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 fully covered and the description does not contradict it. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no statement of what the config contains, whether it is site-scoped or device-scoped, or what happens when the AP is offline.

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 zero filler; nothing is redundant or buried. The brevity is a structural strength even though content is thin elsewhere.

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 low-complexity, read-only, two-parameter getter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is retrieved. The remaining gap is which fields the power saving config returns, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 both apMac (with format and a listDevices pointer) and siteId (with default-site fallback and listSites pointer) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting information beyond that, so 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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('power saving config for an AP'), which is more precise than the ambiguous tool name. However, it never distinguishes this from the many sibling AP-configuration getters (getApGeneralConfig, getSitesApsLoadBalance, getSitesApsOfdma), so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to use it. The only routing help ('Use listDevices to find AP MACs') lives in the schema, not the description.

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