cvcue_list_rogue_aps

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does at least establish that this is a read/listing operation over WIPS-detected APs and enumerates the returned attributes. It omits whether results are paginated, whether they are cached or live, and any permission requirements for WIPS data.

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 that leads with what is listed and follows with the returned fields; no filler. It is slightly dense in its parenthetical value list, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, full schema documentation and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (SSIDs, vendor, signal, clients) usefully substitutes for the missing return-value documentation. What remains thin is the relationship to adjacent AP/rogue-summary tools, but the core call-and-interpret story is complete.

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% (every parameter, including the four classification values and the page_size cap, is documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of filtering 'by classification', which restates the group parameter without new syntax or semantics.

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 APs detected by CV-CUE WIPS sensors') plus the classification dimension and the fields returned (SSIDs, vendor, signal, clients). This clearly separates it from the managed-AP listing, though it never names the sibling it is distinct from (cvcue_list_aps / cvcue_rogue_ap_summary), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the WIPS/rogue framing and the 'by classification' phrasing, so an agent can infer this is for inspecting detected-but-unmanaged radios. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. when to prefer cvcue_rogue_ap_summary for aggregate counts or cvcue_list_aps for managed inventory.

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