client_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It signals read-only via '[READ]' and lists returned fields. However, it omits important behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., missing client_id), authentication needs, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read but could be more transparent.

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 concise with a one-line purpose and an 'Args' block. It front-loads the READ tag and resource. No redundant text. Minor improvement would be bullet-points for readability, but overall efficient.

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 simple get tool without an output schema, the description lists expected fields but does not specify return format, success/error indicators, or how it differs from all siblings (e.g., 'client_connectivity' is also about a single client). Could be more complete given the lack of output schema.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining network_id, client_id (noting it comes from client_list), and target (with usage note). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types and required flags.

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 it is a read operation with [READ] and lists the specific attributes returned (description, MAC, IP, VLAN, manufacturer). The verb 'get' and resource 'client detail' are unambiguous, and the mention of 'one client' distinguishes it from sibling 'client_list'.

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 parameter hints but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'client_connectivity' or 'client_usage'. The context is implied by the tool name and description, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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