list_radios

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses only basic behavior: listing radios with RF details and filtering. No mention of pagination, rate limits, authentication, or error handling.

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 efficient: 4 lines of main text and 3 lines for Args. No redundant words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 purpose and parameters well. Output schema exists, so return values don't need detail. Behavioral transparency is lacking, but for a list tool with two optional params, the description is mostly complete.

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?

The Args block explains both parameters (site: exact match, server-side; band: e.g., '2.4 GHz', '5 GHz'), adding meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 AP radios with RF details' and specifies the RF details (channel assignment, utilization, noise floor, TX power). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_aps by focusing on radio-level data, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 says 'Use this for RF troubleshooting', providing a clear use case. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., list_aps for AP-level info).

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