listClientsActivity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool returns time-series data with categories and client types (wireless/EAP and wired/switch), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations like time range defaults, data granularity, or whether data is read-only.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description does summarize the response content. However, it lacks details about default time ranges, response format, or how to interpret the time snapshots, which an agent would need to call it correctly without further probing.

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 general context about 'time' and 'dashboard' but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('client activity statistics over time from the dashboard'), and clearly distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing time-series data of new, active, and disconnected clients. This makes it easily differentiable from tools like listClients or listMostActiveClients.

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 context: 'Useful for monitoring client connection trends and activity patterns.' It implies when to use this tool without explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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