connected_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List', but it does not detail any potential side effects, permission requirements, or performance implications. It does add context by specifying the data sources (DHCP leases and ARP table), which is useful 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('List currently connected network clients') and adds a clarifying parenthetical about data sources. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool, this description is fully complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the underlying data sources. Given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, there is no essential information missing that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 params. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it does not attempt to invent semantics for non-existent parameters.

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 function: listing currently connected network clients. It specifies the data sources (DHCP leases and ARP table), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_interfaces or wifi_status. The verb 'List' and the resource 'connected network clients' are specific and unambiguous.

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: when you need to see connected clients, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like connection_status or network_status. There is no explicit when-not or alternative guidance, but the clear purpose makes the intended use reasonably obvious.

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