listClients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, response shape, authorization needs, or what happens when siteId is omitted.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is efficient, though more detail could have been added without becoming bloated.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is too sparse to enable confident invocation. It does not clarify that siteId needs to be supplied or what the returned list contains, and it gives no help in choosing among the many client-related 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 0%, and the description only loosely references 'a site' rather than explicitly explaining the siteId parameter, its requiredness, or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 concrete action ('List') and resource ('network clients') scoped to a site, making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like getClient or listClientsActivity, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as listMostActiveClients, getClient, or listClientsPastConnections. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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