listClientsActivity

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the type of data (time-series) and client categories, but does not mention behavioral traits like data aggregation intervals, real-time vs historical, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and return type, with no redundant information. The first sentence is action-oriented, and the second adds context.

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?

Given no output schema, the description is brief for a time-series tool. It lacks details on the response structure, pagination, or how snapshots are timestamped. While it covers essential data points, more completeness would aid agent usage.

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 provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (75% coverage). The description mentions 'over time' correlating with start/end but adds no further meaning. customHeaders parameter is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 the tool retrieves client activity statistics as time-series data, specifying new, active, and disconnected clients for both wireless and wired types. This differentiates it from sibling tools like listClients or getClientDetail.

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 notes it is 'useful for monitoring client connection trends and activity patterns', implicitly guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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