get_channel_plan

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation and the scope is stated, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose response shape, notable edge cases, error conditions, or any special behavior beyond the basic retrieval.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main operation is stated first, followed immediately by the only parameter guidance an agent needs. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what it returns, the required entity, and accepted identifier formats. It could optionally describe the return payload in more detail, but that is not essential for 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions and coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'host: console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and 'site: site name or ID.' This gives an agent concrete, actionable guidance for constructing valid calls.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get RF channel assignments and DFS status for a site.' It clearly states what the tool returns, and the focus on RF channel assignments and DFS distinguishes it from most of the many get_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with a closely related sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent should call this when it needs RF channel assignments or DFS status for a specific site. The description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives, though 'for a site' and the parameter hints provide moderate direction.

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