Get EMQX Client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return includes 'keepalive, in-flight queue, protocol, subscriptions count, connect and disconnect timestamps', conveying that it provides comprehensive session state rather than a summary. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no fluff; it front-loads the core purpose and packs a list of relevant fields. Every word 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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema available, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool does. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., unknown client), but that is likely handled by the output schema, so completeness is high but not maximal.

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 100%; the parameter clientid already has a clear description ('Exact client id, as returned by emqx_list_clients'), and the tool description adds no further parameter-specific semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 begins with 'Full session detail for one client', clearly identifying the tool as a single-client lookup. It lists specific data fields (keepalive, in-flight queue, protocol, subscriptions count, timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like emqx_list_clients or emqx_client_subscriptions.

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 phrase 'for one client' implies the tool is for single-client detail, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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