router_get_connected_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden itself; it does disclose scope ('currently on the router LAN', wired and wireless) and the kind of data returned. However, it says nothing about whether results are cached, whether the call is read-only, or how long it takes to enumerate clients.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already declares, which is the only waste.

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 explaining return fields is unnecessary, and the description is adequate on what the tool yields. But for a tool with an undocumented `force` flag and no annotations, an agent still lacks the context needed to decide when to set it.

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% and the description never mentions the single `force` parameter. Its semantics (presumably bypassing a cached client list) are left entirely ambiguous, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ('Retrieves all connected wired and wireless devices currently on the router LAN'), which clearly separates it from siblings like router_get_wifi_networks (configured networks) or router_get_status. It never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus related tools such as router_get_status, router_get_wifi_networks, or router_manage_dhcp_reservation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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