router_client_summary

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by indicating that the tool merges and reconciles three different client data sources into one inventory, which is more than a simple fetch and clarifies the tool's integration 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 a single, focused sentence that starts with the action verb and immediately states the inputs and output concept. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only, idempotent summary tool, the description provides the essential information: what data sources are merged and what the result represents. It could be slightly more explicit about the output shape (e.g., what fields a client entry contains), but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden to carry. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema is fully consistent with the tool being a no-input summary operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge') and names the exact resources being combined (DHCP leases, LuCI host hints, Wi-Fi associations) into a single client inventory. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like router_dhcp_leases and router_wifi_clients, which each return individual data sources.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit. The description suggests the tool is for obtaining a unified client inventory, and an agent can infer it should be used instead of querying multiple individual source tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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