get_hotspot_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior—returning an error if not in hotspot mode—and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or rate-limit implications, leaving some burden unmet.

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 two short lines of purpose plus a one-line argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the operational purpose and error condition, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, the single optional parameter, and an important error condition. For a low-complexity tool, this is nearly complete; only a slightly clearer definition of 'client count' (e.g., current active vs. total associated) is absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does so by explaining 'iface' as an optional AP interface name and noting auto-detection when omitted, which gives meaning beyond the raw schema. It stops short of providing format examples or common values, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('connected client count') with a clear context ('hotspot mode'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_hotspot_stations, which would provide station details rather than a count.

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 provides clear usage context: the tool is for hotspot mode and explicitly returns an error if the device is not in that mode. It does not name alternative tools or conditions for when the count would be less appropriate, but the error condition effectively communicates when not to call it.

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