v2_ap_radios

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by clarifying values are returned in 'REAL UNITS' and enumerating the returned payload, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('Per-AP everything') and ending with the one actionable parameter rule. The long enumeration is informative rather than wasteful.

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?

Describes the return payload because no output schema exists, which is important. But it omits any explanation of siteId and does not indicate pagination or defaults, leaving a small but real gap for a two-parameter read 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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains apMac semantics ('omit for all APs') but says nothing about siteId, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 enumerates the per-AP radio facets returned (channel/width/power, load balance, WMM, OFDMA, mesh, etc.), making it clear this is a getter for AP radio configuration. It implicitly contrasts with mutation siblings like v2_set_ap_radio, but never states an explicit verb or sibling differentiation.

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?

'Omit apMac for all APs' gives a conditional usage rule for one parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over v2_rf_health, v2_channel_util, or v2_set_ap_radio, so usage is only implied.

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