listClients

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read-only retrieval behavior and output fields. However, it does not mention potential issues like pagination or response size limits, which is acceptable for a simple list tool.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by output details. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the returned fields (MAC, IP, hostname, device, SSID, signal strength, traffic, online status). This covers the key information an agent would need to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (siteId, customHeaders) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List all network clients') and clearly identifies the resource (clients connected to a site). It provides a comprehensive list of returned details (MAC, IP, hostname, etc.), distinguishing it from tools like 'getClient' (specific client) and 'listClientsActivity'.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'Use this to audit connected devices or find a specific client by name or MAC.' While it doesn't directly mention when not to use it or alternatives, the guidance is clear and practical for typical scenarios.

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