listSitesApsPorts

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, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond that bar: no indication of what a port record contains, whether results are paginated, or whether the AP must be online/connected for data to be returned. It largely restates the tool name.

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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness, which is penalized in the other dimensions rather than here.

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?

The tool is low-complexity, has only two fully documented parameters, and carries annotations covering its safety profile, so the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. It still leaves gaps about what port data is returned and any preconditions (e.g., AP reachability), which matters given there is no output schema.

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 both apMac (format plus a pointer to listDevices) and siteId (default-site fallback to OMADA_SITE_ID plus a pointer to listSites) fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ports on an AP'), so an agent immediately knows this is a read of physical/logical port data for a given access point. It does not, however, distinguish it from port-oriented siblings such as getSwitchPorts or getStackPorts, nor clarify what 'ports' means for an AP (Ethernet uplinks vs. LAN ports).

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only routing hints ('Use listDevices to find AP MACs', 'Use listSites to discover site IDs') live in the schema parameter descriptions, not the tool description, and they concern parameter sourcing rather than tool selection.

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