network_get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation but does not disclose permissions needed, behavior for disconnected clients, or the meaning of 'detailed information'. While low-risk, additional context (e.g., 'returns full client properties') would improve transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but it includes redundant parameter documentation that mirrors the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter details since they are in the schema. The missing title does not significantly impact understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on usage context, edge cases, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving it minimally adequate.

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. However, it merely repeats the parameter names ('site_id: The site ID. client_id: The client ID.') without adding semantics like format, constraints, or examples. This adds little beyond the schema's titles.

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 clearly states the tool 'Get detailed information about a specific connected client', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_list_clients (which lists clients) and network_get_device (which gets device info) by targeting a single client with detailed info.

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 implies usage when you have a specific client_id and site_id to retrieve details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., network_list_clients for summary, or network_get_device for device info). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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