list_ap_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List all AP groups' implies a read-only operation and tells the agent there is no filtering (all groups are returned). However, it does not explicitly confirm safety, auth requirements, or potential rate limits, leaving some ambiguity for a simple list tool.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, delivering the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, an output schema, and a clear purpose—the description is complete. An agent can invoke it correctly based solely on 'List all AP groups.' The output schema covers return values, and there is no need for additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description correctly omits parameter details because none exist.

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 'List all AP groups.' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (AP groups), clearly stating what the tool does. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list_wlan_groups and list_user_groups by explicitly naming the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_wlan_groups or list_user_groups. The description gives no context for selection among the many list_* siblings, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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