cvcue_list_aps

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It signals the read-only nature via the GET endpoint and discloses the returned field set, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, result-size limits, or how pagination behaves (e.g. whether a total count comes back), leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The capability statement with returned fields comes first, and the sibling routing follows — a front-loaded structure an agent can parse in one pass.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It falls slightly short on pagination semantics and permission/auth expectations, but nothing critical to invoking the tool correctly is 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 description coverage is 100%, so every filter (name, model, active, location_id, software_version, include_radios, start, page_size) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no filter syntax, combination rules, or examples beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 managed Arista APs') plus the backing endpoint (GET /manageddevices/aps) and enumerates the fields returned (status, model, firmware, IP, location, client count). An agent can distinguish this inventory-listing tool from health-rollup and single-AP siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: 'Use cvcue_ap_health_summary for fleet-wide rollups and cvcue_get_ap for one AP.' This covers the two most likely competing intents (aggregate stats vs. single-device detail) and implicitly defines when this tool is the right pick — a filtered list of individual APs.

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