rport_get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose optional behavior around including processes and mount points, and 'Detalle' implies a read operation. However, it does not clarify response shape, potential errors, or whether the optional includes change the output structure.

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, concise sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. It wastes no words and directly conveys the resource, the key identifier, and optional extensions. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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-by-id tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics. Still, it lacks explicit guidance on response structure and what 'detalle' includes by default. The optional flags are described, but an agent might need more context about default behavior when they are omitted.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, repeating that processes and mount points can be optionally included. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since no compensation is needed.

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's purpose: retrieving details of a single RPort client by id. It also mentions optional process and mountpoint data, distinguishing it from list-oriented siblings like rport_list_clients. The verb-resource combination is specific and 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 implies usage: call it when you need details for a specific client id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as rport_list_clients or rport_get_status. Usage context is inferable but not made explicit.

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