get_wifi_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that legacy login (OMADA_USER/OMADA_PASS) is required, explains why (the Open API device list has no per-radio fields, verified against real hardware), and warns that actualChannel is irregularly formatted and must be parsed. These are exactly the operational caveats an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned payload, followed by scope and then the auth caveat; every clause carries information. The parenthetical on the parser and the README reference are slightly verbose but justified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the data source, auth path, and scoping. The only real gap is the unaddressed `site_id` parameter and its default behavior.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `mac` as an optional single-AP filter, but says nothing about `site_id` or what a null/default value implies, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates the exact fields returned (2.4/5GHz channel, per-band client counts, radio utilization), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_device_detail or get_clients, which keeps it 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?

It states the scoping behavior clearly — one entry per AP on the site, or a single AP when `mac` is given — and notes the legacy-login prerequisite. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling get_device_detail or list_devices, so usage routing is only implied.

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