get_wlan_config

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing that the response is returned verbatim and includes plaintext x_passphrase credential fields—an important, non-obvious behavior. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but the sensitive-data warning adds significant 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: one-line purpose, followed by parameter definitions, then a behavioral warning. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 a simple 3-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter semantics, and return characteristics (verbatim, plaintext credentials). Minor gaps like error handling or authorization requirements are acceptable for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides concrete meanings for all three parameters: host (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site (name or ID), and wlan_id. This fully compensates for the schema's bare string types.

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 states a specific action ('Get a single WLAN configuration by ID'), identifies the resource (WLAN/SSID config), and clearly distinguishes it from list and update sibling tools. The verb+resource+scoping is unambiguous.

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 explains what each parameter means and implies the tool is for retrieving a specific config when its ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over list_wlan_configs or update_wlan_config.

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