List clients

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered upstream. The description adds the shape of each returned record, but says nothing about pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), result ordering, or cost/latency for large sites, and it cuts off mid-sentence before reaching any further behavioral detail.

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 sentence that terminates with an ellipsis ('... and'), meaning the field list is literally truncated mid-enumeration. It is short, but the brevity is accidental truncation rather than disciplined economy, and the missing tail may hide the most differentiating content.

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 return fields need not be spelled out — yet the description spends its only sentence enumerating them and still truncates. With two parameters at 50% description coverage and no guidance on pagination, site scoping, or sibling selection, an agent cannot confidently invoke this versus list_wifi_clients, list_wired_clients, or search_clients.

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 only 50%: the limit parameter is documented in the schema but the site parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds no semantics for either parameter — no note that site scopes the query to one site or what happens when it is omitted — so it 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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (connected clients) and enumerates what each entry carries (MAC, IP, SSID, AP, VLAN, counters, duration). The parenthetical 'WiFi and wired' hints that it spans both media types, which implicitly sets it apart from list_wifi_clients/list_wired_clients, but it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: by stating it returns both WiFi and wired clients, an agent can infer this is the union query versus the split siblings. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when…', no note on when search_clients is preferable, and no stated prerequisites for the site parameter.

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