listClientsPastConnections

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and return fields (timestamps, traffic, duration, device details), and mentions pagination, filtering, sorting, and fuzzy search, but could add more safety context.

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 with no fluff: first states purpose, second lists features. Every word adds value.

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 main features and return fields, but given 9 parameters and absence of output schema, it could elaborate on how to combine parameters or the exact structure of returned data.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explicitly stating 'Supports pagination, filtering by time range and guest status, sorting by last seen time, and fuzzy search by name/MAC/SSID,' which maps directly to multiple parameters and their usage.

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 states 'Get client past connection list with historical connection data' with specific details on returned data and supported features, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getClient (current) and listClients (current list).

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 for historical connections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like listClientsActivity or getGridClientHistory, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions.

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