aruba_get_clients

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'connected' client.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks key information that should be front-loaded, such as parameter effects or return format.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'connected' means, whether filtering is possible, or what the output contains. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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?

The single parameter limit is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose and behavior, but it does not.

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?

Description clearly states it gets a list of connected WiFi clients, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aruba_get_ap_stats or aruba_get_channels. However, it does not specify whether this includes all clients or just currently associated ones.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aruba_get_ap_database or aruba_get_ap_stats. The agent has no information about selection criteria.

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