cvcue_list_radios

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" plus the enumerated returned fields makes the read-only, per-radio nature clear, but it says nothing about pagination defaults (page_size 100, max 500), result ordering, empty-result behavior, or whether unscoped calls return the whole estate — relevant since it defaults to 100 records across all managed APs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence whose parenthetical field list is the highest-value information for an agent choosing between radio-level and AP-level tools. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and returned fields adequately. It stops short of telling the agent how the scoping filters interact or how to page through a large radio estate, which is the remaining gap.

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 all five parameters (start, active, ap_name, page_size, location_id) are already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no filter semantics — it doesn't explain that ap_name and location_id combine, or that active toggles to inactive radios — so baseline 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 Wi-Fi radios across managed APs") and enumerates what each record carries — channel, width, tx power, noise, RF utilization, client count. The trailing clause "the RF view for channel/power analysis" separates it from the co-located cvcue_list_aps, which returns AP-level rather than radio-level data.

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 phrase "for channel/power analysis" implies the scenario where this tool is the right pick, which is more than nothing. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. cvcue_list_aps for AP inventory, cvcue_ap_health_summary for rollups) or states when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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