monitor_wifi_managed_ap

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral transparency. It states a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose traits like performance, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Minimal, acceptable for a simple 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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with core purpose and key fields. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 tool is a simple read operation with one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description provides enough context (purpose, example data) to infer usage. Lacks mention of output structure but output schema covers that.

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% (one param). Description does not add meaning beyond the schema's own description of vdom. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 uses specific verb 'Get detailed status' and clearly identifies the resource 'all managed Access Points' with examples of fields (online/offline, channel, clients). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like monitor_wifi_ap_status (general AP status) and monitor_wifi_client_list (clients only).

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?

Description implies use for detailed AP status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it.

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