get_ap_throughput

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it returns timestamped throughput in bps and defaults to last 3 hours, but does not mention error handling, auth requirements, or impact. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise with a clear function statement followed by structured args. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it does mention timestamped TX/RX throughput. It covers all parameters and defaults. Lacks error case handling but overall complete for a read-only data tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds detailed semantics for each parameter: serial_number lookup guidance, interface_type enum values, and start_at/end_at defaults (schema shows empty strings). Adds significant value beyond 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 the tool retrieves throughput trend for a specific AP as a time-series table with TX/RX throughput in bps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clients_trend or get_ap_status by focusing on AP throughput.

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 implies use for AP throughput data and gives prerequisite guidance (use list_aps or get_ap_status for serial number), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude other scenarios.

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