get_device_wtp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral detail: credential fields are stripped from the stored object, and a missing AP yields a not_found error rather than an exception or empty result. Read-only intent is implied by 'Get' but never stated outright.

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?

Opens with the one-line purpose, then structured Args and Returns blocks; each line carries information. The prose-wrapped Returns paragraph is slightly longer than needed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple single-object read with three required-ish parameters, the definition covers identity, scoping default, response shape, and failure mode. Since an output schema exists, the Returns section is a bonus rather than a requirement, so remaining gaps (permissions, read-only confirmation) are minor.

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 must do the work, and it defines all three parameters: device as the managed device name, wtp_id as the FortiAP serial / table mkey, and vdom as the registration VDOM defaulting to 'root'. It adds meaning the bare schema titles ('Wtp Id', 'Vdom') do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one managed FortiAP by wtp-id (serial number)') and clarifies what wtp-id actually is, which an agent could not infer from the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_device_wtps, so the singular/plural split is only implicit.

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 only implied by 'Get one ... by wtp-id' and the not_found case. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_device_wtps (to enumerate) or get_device_wtp_profile (to read the profile), and no prerequisites for the device/vdom lookup.

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