getGridClientHistory

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

The description discloses that the tool is a read operation returning paginated history with specific fields (timestamps, SSID/network, traffic, auth type). However, it does not provide details on potential behavioral traits like data retention, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what is implied by the tool name.

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 very concise: two sentences front-loading the key purpose and return content. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 complexity of 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and high-level return fields but lacks detail on response structure, time range or how pagination works beyond parameter defaults. Could be more helpful with response format or common usage notes.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the returned fields (timestamps, traffic, etc.) but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline 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 'Get per-client connection history (paginated)', specifying the verb, resource, and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like getClient (current status) and listClients (list all clients) by focusing on historical sessions per client.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as listClientsPastConnections or getClient. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when alternatives might be preferred.

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