list_rogue_aps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: the tool returns ALL APs by default, not just rogues, and that is_rogue distinguishes them. It also lists the returned fields (BSSID, SSID, channel, signal strength, is_rogue, detection time), making the operation predictable. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but the list verb implies a read operation.

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 efficiently organized: purpose statement first, then behavioral explanation, then parameter details and return fields. Each sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy. It is detailed but not bloated.

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 scope, parameter formats, default behavior, the filter option, and the return fields, which is sufficient for a list operation with no output schema. Minor details like pagination or exact response container are absent, but they are not critical for the core 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly. It explains host as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and site as 'name or ID', adding valuable format detail beyond the plain string schema. It also explains the effect of rogue_only, clarifying the default behavior and how to filter to confirmed rogues only.

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 opens with a clear and specific verb-resource pair: 'List neighboring APs detected by the site's radios.' It explicitly states the tool returns ALL neighboring APs, highlights that most are benign, and explains the is_rogue flag. This differentiates it from sibling list tools targeting other resources (e.g., list_clients, get_site_inventory).

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 gives clear usage context: by default the tool returns all neighboring APs, and setting rogue_only=true filters to confirmed rogues. It directly tells the user how to achieve the likely use case of listing only rogues. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the unique resource scope makes the intended use clear.

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