rba_client_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies read-only, but it does not disclose what happens if the client is not connected or if clientId is invalid, nor what 'full details' actually includes. This lack of error and return behavior is a significant 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of eight words with no wasted content. It clearly states the action, object, and scope, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify return content and error behavior. 'Full details' is vague, but the general purpose is still clear enough for an agent to consider using 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%, so the description must compensate for the clientId parameter. It only adds that the client must be connected, but does not explain where to obtain the clientId or its exact meaning beyond the schema's integer type.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'full details for one connected RBA websocket client', which clearly distinguishes it from list-like siblings such as rba_clients or connection-level rba_connection_info. It captures both the action and the scope of the 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The phrase 'for one connected client' implies a distinction from list tools, but it doesn't mention rba_clients for listing or any prerequisities like obtaining a clientId.

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