List EMQX Clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond annotations by noting the tool lists clients 'known to the broker' (implying both online and offline) and giving pagination strategy. These are useful behavioral details beyond the structured 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only essential examples and tips. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff 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?

With an output schema present and safe read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, common use cases, and pagination behavior. The optional filters are already documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It is complete for a list tool.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by mapping use cases to parameters ('who is connecting from this IP' relates to ip_address) and offering guidance on page vs limit. This goes beyond the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 clearly states 'List MQTT clients known to the broker' with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like emqx_get_client by focusing on listing, and provides example queries that clarify what the tool does.

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 gives clear context by answering common questions like 'which devices are online' and 'is device X connected'. It also offers a specific pagination guideline ('raise page rather than limit'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like emqx_get_client for single-client lookups, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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