listClients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates it returns a list of client details, but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or performance characteristics. Additional context about response size limits would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose and return details efficiently with no redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input semantics, and output fields. It does not explain pagination or default behavior for large lists, but is adequate for a listing tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that siteId is optional and defaults to OMADA_SITE_ID, and that customHeaders are rarely needed. This clarifies usage beyond the raw schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all network clients (wired and wireless) connected to a site, and specifies the returned details (MAC, IP, hostname, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getClient (specific client) and listClientsActivity (activity log).

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 suggests use cases: 'audit connected devices or find a specific client by name or MAC.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear. However, it could mention alternative tools like getClient for a single client detail.

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