pihole_get_top_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving top clients by query count but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, how data is sorted or limited, potential rate limits, or what the output format entails beyond the optional ASCII art. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the core functionality.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure or ASCII art details), sorting criteria, or any behavioral traits like read-only nature. For a data-fetching tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('count' and 'visualize'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'top clients' means or how the ASCII art is formatted. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'top clients by query count', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'pihole_get_top_blocked' or 'pihole_get_top_permitted', which also retrieve top lists but by different metrics, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pihole_get_top_blocked' or 'pihole_get_top_permitted'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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