get_ap_throughput

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output (timestamped TX/RX throughput in bps, default 3 hours) and parameter defaults. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the name and content imply a query. No destructive hints are needed.

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?

The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for output/defaults, and a well-formatted argument list. No superfluous sentences; front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and output format. With an output schema present, return details are handled. Missing elements like pagination, time range limits, or error conditions are not critical for this simple query tool, but could add completeness.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. The 'Args' block explains each parameter: serial_number (how to find), interface_type (allowed values), start_at/end_at (RFC 3339 format and defaults). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Get throughput trend for a specific AP as a time-series table,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_ap_status (status, not throughput) and get_clients_trend (clients, not AP).

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 description hints at obtaining serial_number via list_aps or get_ap_status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_clients_trend for client throughput. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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