wifi_wtp_profile_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'List all...', missing critical details like read-only nature, pagination, authorization requirements, or any side effects. The tool is likely non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose. There is no redundant information, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks details about pagination, ordering, or how it relates to similar list tools (e.g., wifi_wtp_list, wifi_vap_list). This leaves an AI agent uncertain about usage in a complex environment.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'vdom' parameter, including its purpose and special values. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states 'List all WTP (Wireless Termination Point / AP) profiles.' It specifies the resource (WTP profiles) and action (list), distinguishing it from a get operation. However, it could be stronger by explicitly differentiating from sibling tools like wifi_wtp_profile_get or wifi_wtp_list.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering options, or use cases. The agent must infer from the context that this is for listing all profiles, while other tools like wifi_wtp_profile_get are for single profiles.

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