client_connectivity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag is consistent with that. The description adds the enumerated stat categories, but discloses nothing about error behavior, time windows, or response shape beyond what the annotations and name imply.

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-loads the read purpose in one bracketed sentence and then a compact Args block. No redundant prose; the only minor cost is that the enumerated stat abbreviations are unexplained.

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 read tool with no output schema and 3 params at 0% schema coverage, the description covers the inputs adequately and hints at return content via the stat categories. It stops short of describing the response structure or time range, leaving a modest gap for an agent deciding whether the result answers its question.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: network_id ('Meraki network id'), client_id ('Client id/MAC (from client_list)'), and target ('Target name from config; omit for the default'). The target semantics are genuinely clarifying (a config profile, omit for default), though acceptable value formats for network_id are not detailed.

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?

States a specific resource ('A client's connection-quality stats') and enumerates the stat categories captured (assoc/auth/dhcp/dns/success), which is more concrete than a generic 'get client info'. It is distinguishable from client_usage/client_get, though it never names the sibling it differs from.

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 tells the agent where client_id comes from ('from client_list'), which is useful routing, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus client_usage, client_get, or network health tools. Usage is implied by the resource rather than stated.

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