list_radios

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List', but doesn't explicitly confirm safety or disclose side effects. Details like server-side filtering and exact match add some transparency.

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?

Very concise: one-line purpose, one-line usage, two lines for parameters. No unnecessary words, 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?

Covers all essential aspects: what it does, what data it returns, filtering options, and context about radio count per AP. Output schema exists for return values, so no need to detail them here.

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 description compensates by explaining both parameters (site and band) with filtering behavior, exact match, and examples. Could clarify boolean combination of filters.

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?

Description clearly states 'List AP radios with RF details', specifying verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list_aps, list_clients, etc.) by focusing on radios and RF troubleshooting parameters like channel assignment and noise floor.

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 states 'Use this for RF troubleshooting' and lists specific RF metrics, giving clear context. While it doesn't mention alternatives by name, the usage scenario is well-defined.

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