agileconfig_list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves client information but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it reflects real-time state, any authentication requirements, or performance considerations. While the purpose is clear, deeper behavioral traits are absent.

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 long: the first sentence states the primary action and resource, the second provides a practical use case. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 or annotations, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool. It explains the what and the why. However, it could briefly indicate the type of information returned (e.g., client IDs, connection status) to enhance completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description adds no parameter details. With no parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—the description does not need to expand on parameter semantics.

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 specifies the verb '获取' (get/list), the resource '所有客户端信息' (all client info) and context '当前连接到 AgileConfig' (currently connected to AgileConfig), and provides a use case for troubleshooting configuration push issues. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that handle apps, users, configs, nodes, etc.

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 states when to use this tool—'可用于排查配置推送问题' (for troubleshooting config push issues)—but lacks guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like 'agileconfig_disconnect_client' as a follow-up. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly qualified.

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