client_usage

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates it's a read operation ('[READ]') and that data is 'rolled up to total sent/received KB,' but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'rolled up' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise: a single opening sentence followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the '[READ]' prefix allows quick identification of the operation type.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and parameter details. However, it does not describe the output format or any pagination/limiting, which would be helpful for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema. It explains that network_id is a 'Meraki network id,' client_id is a 'Client id/MAC (from client_list),' and target is an optional 'Target name from config.' This provides context not available from the schema alone.

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 starts with '[READ]' and states 'A client's usage history rolled up to total sent/received KB,' clearly specifying the verb (retrieve) and resource (usage history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like client_list (listing clients) and client_connectivity (connection info), making the purpose 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 explains each parameter with context ('network_id: Meraki network id.', 'client_id: Client id/MAC (from client_list).', 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default.'), giving clear instructions on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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