openwisp_get_radius_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET method, which signals a read-only operation, and says the output is 'aggregated' — useful context. However, it omits the aggregation window, permission requirements, and any rate-limit 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and scope, followed by a compact category and endpoint tag. No wasted prose, though the bracketed category prefix and raw endpoint add little for an agent that already has the tool name.

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, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. It does not explain the default aggregation scope when neither filter is supplied or the time window covered, which are the main remaining ambiguities for correct invocation.

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 filters are already documented in the schema ('User account filter', 'Organization slug or ID'). The description only restates that the query can target an organization or user, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 aggregated RADIUS bandwidth and session usage metrics', scoped to 'an organization or user'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling openwisp_list_radius_sessions by emphasizing aggregated metrics rather than session listings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch usage metrics for an org or a user. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over openwisp_list_radius_sessions, and no explanation of what happens when both optional filters are omitted (does it aggregate across everything?).

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