vsz_list_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only retrieve action ('retrieve the client table') and adds a scope qualifier ('currently connected'), but it does not address permissions, pagination, or other behavioral traits. A middle score reflects this partial 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 two short sentences plus an Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose and parameter adequately, especially given that an output schema exists to define return values. It lacks comparison to similar tools, but that is more of a usage-guideline issue. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema has no descriptions for the 'host' parameter (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully defines it as 'vSZ controller IP or hostname.' This directly adds meaning beyond the schema and compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('List currently connected wireless clients') with a specific resource and scope. It is not as strong as a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vsz_query_clients or vsz_get_client, but the verb and resource are 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vsz_query_clients or vsz_get_client. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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