zte_get_wifi_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the returned attributes (RSSI, band, mode, TX/RX), which gives the agent a clear behavioral expectation beyond the safety profile. No contradictions.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key data fields. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise with no redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what data it returns. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rules, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameter information is needed beyond what is provided.

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 specifies the action 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'dispositivos conectados por WiFi' (WiFi connected devices), and enumerates the exact data fields (RSSI, band, mode, TX/RX). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'zte_get_wifi_info', which likely retrieves WiFi settings rather than client lists.

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 when needing a list of connected WiFi clients with signal details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zte_get_dhcp_leases for all devices). There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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