get_client_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the action of getting documentation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what behaviors or errors to expect. It adds no value beyond the obvious getter nature.

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 short and to the point, with no unnecessary verbiage. The Args block is redundant given the input schema, but the overall structure is clean and efficient.

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 simple getter with an output schema, the description is adequate at a base level, but it fails to connect to sibling tools like list_available_clients for discovering valid client_type values. The agent is left without a clear path to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'client_type: The client type name,' which is slightly more specific than the schema's 'Client Type' title, but it does not list valid values, how to discover them, or provide any format details. The compensation is minimal.

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 states a specific action ('Get detailed documentation') on a specific resource ('a specific clearskies client type'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_available_clients. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it misses the top score.

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, nor does it mention that the client_type must come from a known list (e.g., list_available_clients). Usage is only implied by the action verb, leaving the agent to infer context.

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