cvcue_rogue_ap_summary

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 usefully disclose the shape of the result (aggregate counts, associated clients, top vendors/SSIDs among rogues), which goes beyond a bare purpose statement, but it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, result size, or scoping behavior when location_id is omitted.

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 compact sentence in a label-plus-list structure, front-loaded with the domain context 'WIPS overview' and then the contents. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the returned metrics, and it does so concretely. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to call it, though the lack of annotations leaves safety/scoping assumptions unstated.

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%, and the single parameter location_id is already documented as 'Scope to a location subtree.' The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter (e.g., whether omitting it returns all locations), 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?

The description names the resource (WIPS rogue/detected AP data) and enumerates the specific aggregates returned: counts per classification, rogue APs with associated clients, top vendors, and top SSIDs. It is clear it is an aggregate overview rather than a raw list, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling cvcue_list_rogue_aps.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the obvious alternative (cvcue_list_rogue_aps for per-AP detail). An agent must infer from the word 'overview' that this is the dashboard-style rollup and not the detailed listing.

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