get_client_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful scope constraint: only *online* clients are covered, so offline clients will not appear. It also implies a read-only, non-mutating operation via 'stats'/'diagnosis'. It does not mention permissions or sizing/cost of the response, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: field inventory first, then the diagnostic payoff. Every clause earns its place — no restatement of the tool name, no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, and it instead adds interpretive meaning (what each metric tells you about a slow connection). For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the absence of any note on which clients appear or response size holds it back.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the argument surface, and it correctly implies the call is parameterless (returns stats for online clients in aggregate).

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?

States a specific resource (per-client wireless stats) and scope (online clients), then enumerates exactly what is returned: signal_dbm, tx/rx_rate_kbps, band, online_seconds, packet counts. The field list makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_clients (enumeration) or wifi_info (radio-level data).

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?

Frames the use case concretely — diagnosing 'wifi is slow' in one call by separating weak RSSI from low PHY rate from band issues. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use wifi_info for radio config'), which keeps it from a 5.

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