getUplinkWiredDetail

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 the shape of the returned data, which is valuable, but says nothing about behavior when the AP is not wired-uplinked (mesh/wireless) or about error conditions such as an unknown MAC.

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, scoped identically to the name and front-loaded with the return contents. No filler, though the trailing topology sentence is the weakest and could carry more routing value if it named a sibling.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return fields and lets the schema handle the rest. It is nearly complete, missing only the edge case of APs without a wired uplink.

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 params are documented there, including how to obtain apMac via listDevices and the siteId default from OMADA_SITE_ID. 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 and resource (get wired uplink detail for an AP) and enumerates exactly what comes back: connected switch, port number, link speed, PoE status. That payload list differentiates it from configuration siblings like getApUplinkConfig and topology siblings like getDownlinkWiredDevices.

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?

The clause 'Useful for mapping physical network topology' implies a use case but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance. An agent must infer on its own whether to reach for this or getApUplinkConfig / getDownlinkWiredDevices.

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