cvcue_get_ap

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, behavior when the MAC or name does not match, or whether the name must be unique. It does add useful context by listing the data categories returned, which is more than the structured fields offer.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource and the identifier first and the returned fields in a compact parenthetical. No wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope and the shape of the response. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and result size, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the parameter already documents 'AP MAC address or exact AP name'. The description's 'by MAC or name' restates that without adding format examples, casing rules, or lookup-precedence behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one managed AP') and enumerates the payload (radios, wired interfaces, mesh, health), which separates it from the list-style sibling cvcue_list_aps. It stops short of explicitly naming cvcue_ap_health_summary or cvcue_list_aps as the alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 single-AP scope and 'full details' framing imply when to reach for it over a listing or summary call, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use language and no mention of the health-summary sibling that covers overlapping data.

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