getClientDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the data returned (connection info, IP, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if MAC not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. The description lacks transparency for a read operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action (get detail), target (specific client by MAC), and content (connection info, IP, VLAN, etc.). Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 description covers the essential purpose and lists the return data, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it lacks context on error cases, prerequisites (e.g., client must exist), or how to interpret the details. Adequate for a simple get tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as noting that siteId defaults and customHeaders is rarely needed. This meets baseline expectations but does not significantly enhance understanding.

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's purpose: retrieving full detail for a specific client by MAC address, listing connection info, IP, VLAN, signal strength, and traffic stats. It distinguishes from siblings like getClient (presumably basic) and other detail tools (getApDetail, getGatewayDetail).

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 hints at usage by mentioning that siteId can be omitted to use a default, and directs to listSites for discovering site IDs. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings like getClient or diagnoseClient or state when to use this tool over others.

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