openwisp_list_floorplans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only repeats the category and the HTTP verb/endpoint. It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether results are paginated or filtered by default, or what the response contains.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: a category prefix, a one-line purpose, and the endpoint. No wasted words, though the endpoint parenthetical is arguably filler for an agent.

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 list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It leaves open whether results are paginated or scoped to an organization by default, which matters 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 the two filter parameters (organization, organization_slug) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or filtering nuance beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('List indoor floor plans') that an agent can distinguish from the sibling operations get_floorplan, create_floorplan, and delete_floorplan. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-style siblings such as list_locations.

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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings like list_location_geojson or the floorplan CRUD operations. An agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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