list_aps

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It describes the tool as listing APs with an overview, implying a read-only operation. While not explicitly stating safety, the nature of a list operation is transparent enough. Could add explicit 'read-only' but not required for this case.

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: three clearly separated paragraphs covering purpose, usage guideline, and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool is simple with 2 optional parameters and an existing output schema. The description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics sufficiently for correct agent invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully covers both parameters: 'site' (exact match, server-side, empty for all) and 'status' (examples like ONLINE/OFFLINE, empty for all). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema field names and defaults.

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 it lists access points with a device-level overview. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_radios' by specifying that 'list_aps' is for inventory and availability, while 'list_radios' covers RF details.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('AP inventory and availability checks') and when not to use, directing to 'list_radios' for RF details. This provides unambiguous guidance for agent selection.

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