rport_list_clients

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 adds useful context by stating the default field projection (estado, hostname, IPs, tags, túneles) and filtering behavior. It does not explicitly mention pagination, read-only guarantees, or auth expectations, though the verb 'Lista' does imply a non-mutating call.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then provides the most useful behavioral details about default fields and filtering.

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 list tool with 8 optional parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, default projection, and filter options, while the schema documents every parameter. Minor gaps remain: pagination is not mentioned in prose and the response shape is only summarized via the default-fields list.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented with details such as wildcard support, exact tag matching, sort fields, and default limit. The description's filter summary mostly paraphrases the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Lista' with the resource 'clientes RPort', making it clear this is a client listing operation rather than a single-client detail call. It is distinguishable from siblings like rport_get_client (singular) and rport_list_client_groups (groups), and it adds specificity by naming default fields and filter modes.

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 states that this lists RPort clients and enumerates available filters (name, hostname, state, free search), which implies when it should be used for broad client queries. However, it does not explicitly contrast with rport_get_client or other sibling tools, so when-not-to-use guidance is missing.

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