monitor_wifi_ap_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Get operational status,' implying read-only, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens when an AP is offline. The description is basic but not misleading.

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?

Single sentence (12 words) is very concise. Front-loads the purpose and key output details. Could be improved by adding structure, but no waste.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential fields and the scope. However, it omits edge cases like offline APs or pagination, but this is acceptable for a simple monitor tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (wtp_id and vdom). It only mentions returned fields, not how parameters affect them.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves operational status of APs, listing specific attributes (up/down, channel, TX power). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('APs'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like monitor_wifi_client_list or monitor_wifi_managed_ap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monitor_wifi_managed_ap or wifi_wtp_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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