List wireless clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context by naming the four supported packages (wifi, wifiwave2, legacy wireless, CAPsMAN), which tells the agent the tool works across firmware families. It says nothing about result ordering or the default row cap beyond what the schema already states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical package-support note is the only elaboration and it 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?

For a two-parameter, zero-required, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is essentially sufficient. The only unmet need is telling the agent which client attributes come back or how this differs from other table-listing siblings.

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 both parameters (limit with its default of 200, and device defaulting to the first device) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list connected Wi-Fi clients) plus the data source (the registration table), which is far more precise than the sibling-sounding mikrotik_print. It does not explicitly contrast itself with neighboring table tools like mikrotik_dhcp_leases or mikrotik_arp_table, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointers to alternatives. An agent choosing between this, mikrotik_dhcp_leases, and mikrotik_arp_table for 'who is on my network' gets no routing signal.

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