get_wlans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only operation' without contradiction. It adds useful context about what is returned: each WLAN's name, id, enabled state, guest flag, and security settings. This is appropriate additional transparency for a simple read-only tool.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: purpose, read-only confirmation, returned fields, alternative tools, then parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, clarifies that it is read-only, and points to sibling tools for related operations. No critical information is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both site and device parameters. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema content without adding new semantic depth. It effectively confirms defaults but does not substantially go beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 all wireless network (SSID) configurations for a site.' It clearly distinguishes itself from get_networks by specifying WLANs and wired networks as separate. The description also enumerates key returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly names the relevant alternatives: 'Use create_wlan / update_wlan / delete_wlan to change them, or get_networks for wired networks.' This provides clear routing guidance for both mutation and wired-network use cases, which is strong usage guidance beyond the tool's own purpose.

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