capsman_registrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions coverage of 'auto legacy atau wifiwave2' but does not describe whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or permissions needed. The minimal description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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, short sentence that conveys the core purpose without waste. However, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying the output) without becoming verbose. Still, it is appropriately compact.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It omits details about the output format, what 'registrations' includes, and any behavioral notes. More context would improve completeness without overwhelming the agent.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. With no parameters to document, the description adds no parameter information, but this is acceptable as baseline given the schema handles all. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 states 'Klien yang terhubung lewat CAPsMAN' which clearly indicates the tool lists clients connected via CAPsMAN. The mention of 'Auto legacy atau wifiwave2' clarifies the scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like capsman_remote_caps or wifi_registrations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any conditional, prerequisites, or contrasts with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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