get_wlan_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains parameter formats (host, site, group_id) and the read-only verb 'Get', but does not mention whether any side effects occur, what the response contains, whether special permissions are required, or error behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 extremely concise: a single functional sentence followed by a compact parameter legend. Every line earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The layout cleanly separates the action from parameter semantics, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers all three required parameters and their accepted formats, which is the core need for invoking the tool. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return values or error conditions, the agent lacks information about what response to expect. For a simple read-only getter this is a moderate gap, making it barely adequate.

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 each parameter: host is a console name, ID, or composite ID; site is a name or ID; group_id is a WLAN group ID. Since the schema only provides types, this additional detail is essential and well provided. A small deduction for lacking concrete examples or further formatting constraints.

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 the specific action and resource: 'Get a single WLAN group by ID.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'WLAN group' are unambiguous, and the 'single... by ID' scope distinguishes it from list-type siblings like list_wlan_groups and get_wlan_config. The one-sentence opening fully conveys what the tool does.

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 implies usage when a single WLAN group is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as list_wlan_groups, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use this tool. The parameter guidance is helpful but does not address selection context.

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