listClientsActivity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output type (time-series data) and content (new, active, disconnected clients), but does not mention potential behavioral traits like data granularity, pagination, or effects of missing parameters. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, no waste. First sentence states action and source, second specifies output, third suggests use case. Efficient and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema and the moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), the description covers the purpose and output well but lacks details on default behaviors (e.g., siteId, date range defaults) and output format specifics.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about time-series data but does not improve understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 client activity statistics over time from the dashboard' with specific output details (new, active, disconnected clients for wireless and wired). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listClients (current clients) and listClientsPastConnections (past connections).

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 says 'Useful for monitoring client connection trends and activity patterns,' which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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