list_device_vaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add a genuinely useful disclosure — passphrases are stripped from the returned VAPs — and names the return shape, but it omits pagination/limits, permission or authentication requirements, and what happens when the device or VDOM is unknown.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns breakdown with no filler. The Args section slightly restates schema fields, but the added semantic detail justifies the space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is partly redundant, yet the description still usefully summarizes the dict keys and the passphrase stripping. For a simple two-parameter list tool this is nearly complete; only error behavior and any result-size limits are absent.

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 compensate, and it largely does: it clarifies that device is a "Managed device name" (not an ADOM or serial) and that vdom selects the VDOM to read with a default of "root". Only the exact accepted identifier format and valid VDOM names remain 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List wireless VAPs (SSIDs)") and scopes it to a single device's device DB, which distinguishes it from ADOM-level profile listings like list_device_wtp_profiles. It does not name sibling read/write counterparts such as create_device_vap or list_device_wtps, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

The Args block enumerates inputs but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. device must be managed/adopted), and no exclusions relative to alternatives like list_device_wtps or get_device_wtp_profile. The agent must infer that this is the read-only path because the verb is "list".

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