List TacticalRMM Clients

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the endpoint '/clients/' and the auth-bound visibility ('visible to the API key'), which provides context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence ('This tool is read-only') is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so it does not fully earn its place. Still, it is concise and well-organized.

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 list tool with no output schema and only optional parameters, the description is adequate. It mentions the endpoint, scope, and read-only nature. It could explicitly note pagination behavior, but the schema already describes limit/offset, so this is not a major gap.

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 describes all three parameters (limit, offset, response_format) with full 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so no bonus is warranted.

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 specific verb 'List' with the resource 'clients' and specifies the source '/clients/'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list other resources (agents, sites, etc.). The scope 'visible to the TacticalRMM API key' adds important context.

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 for retrieving the client list, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so usage context is only implicit.

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