router_wifi_clients

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the operation targets one wireless interface, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as empty client lists or invalid interface names.

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 sentence that states the operation, the target resource, and a concrete example. Every word earns its place, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly: what it lists and on which interface. It could mention result format or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, the current description is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the 'device' parameter is already described as 'Wireless interface name, for example phy1-ap0'. The tool description repeats the same example and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('List clients') and the specific resource scope ('one wireless interface'), with a concrete interface example. It is unambiguous and meaningful, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like router_wifi_overview or router_client_summary.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need clients for a particular wireless interface. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative tool, leaving some routing decisions to the agent's inference.

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