getClientDetail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states what data is returned but omits behavioral traits such as whether the client must be online, if the tool is rate-limited, or that siteId defaults to a configured site (not mentioned). Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with key information, and contains no extraneous content.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and returned fields. However, it could improve by noting that the client must be currently connected (likely) or any other contextual limitations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on the output. Schema already documents clientMac as required and siteId with default behavior.

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 specifies a clear action ('Get full detail') and resource ('specific client by MAC address'), listing key data fields (connection info, IP, VLAN, signal strength, traffic stats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'getClient' (likely simpler) and 'listClients' (list all).

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 implicitly indicates usage when full client details are needed by MAC, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'getClient' for summary, 'listClients' for all clients). No prerequisites 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.