v2_security_audit

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine domain value beyond that: it discloses the analysis logic (flagging PMF Mandatory=1 on WPA2-PSK and WPA2/WPA3 transition mode as downgrade-vulnerable), which tells the agent what the output actually means rather than just that it is a read.

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?

It is front-loaded with the highest-value content: the table's columns come first, then the flagging rules. Two sentences with no filler. The second sentence is dense, but every clause carries concrete technical detail rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the table columns and the flagged conditions. The main remaining gap is the siteId scoping and required-parameter behavior, but for a single-parameter read tool the coverage is otherwise solid.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions the sole parameter siteId or its scope (whether it is optional, what happens if omitted, how the table is scoped). The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this from being worse, but the definition adds no semantic value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it audits the security posture of every SSID and returns a defined table of fields (WPA version, PMF mode, 802.11r, guest isolation, band, VLAN, broadcast). This is far more specific than a bare 'audit' name. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling such as v2_ssids, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no explicit 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?

Usage is implied: you would call this to assess SSID security configuration and find destabilising combinations. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., 'use v2_ssids for a plain listing, use this for a security-focused view'). The agent must infer the routing.

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