list_bssids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, and the filtering behavior is transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, which would be helpful.

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: two sentences for the purpose and one sentence for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and no redundant 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?

Given the simple tool with only one parameter and an output schema (presumably covering return values), the description is fairly complete. It explains the resource and filtering. However, it does not detail the response fields, though that may be acceptable with an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'site' parameter: 'Filter by site name (exact match, server-side). Empty for all.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'List all BSSIDs (per-radio, per-SSID broadcast identifiers)', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_radios or list_wlans. It explains the purpose and the relationship to radios and WLANs.

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 provides a use case ('useful for identifying which radio on which AP is broadcasting a specific SSID') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Agents could infer usage, but explicit guidance is missing.

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