client_list

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

The description includes '[READ]' to indicate read-only behavior and specifies parameter constraints, but does not detail error handling, pagination, or response format. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 brief (two sentences plus an args block), front-loaded with purpose, and each line adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 inputs well but lacks any indication of the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left uncertain about what the tool returns. For a list tool, this is a notable gap.

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%, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: network_id source, timespan valid range and default, and target as optional config name. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 tool lists clients on a network with a look-back window, using the verb 'list' from the name and specifying resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like client_get (single client) and client_usage (usage data).

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 constraints (e.g., timespan range, required network_id from network_list) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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