find_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the tool returns (site, AP, SSID, IP, band, signal) and the required input ('mac or hostname'). This is a read-only lookup operation, and the description is clear about its output. It does not address edge cases or error behavior, but for a simple locate function, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, the search criteria, and the output fields. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details—every clause adds useful information.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values. It does not need to explain parameters because the schema covers them. It could mention lookback behavior or error handling, but for a relatively simple lookup tool, the information provided is complete enough.

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?

Although the input schema already describes all four parameters (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics: it specifies that the caller must provide 'mac or hostname', resolving ambiguity about which parameter is required. It also clarifies that the tool specifically targets wireless clients, which is not fully explicit in the schema alone.

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 the specific verb 'Locate' with the resource 'wireless client' and enumerates the output fields (site, AP, SSID, IP, band, signal). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_clients' (which lists clients) and 'trace_client' (which traces paths) by targeting a single client by MAC or hostname.

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 explicitly states 'Provide mac or hostname', giving clear input guidance. It implies this tool is for looking up a specific client by identifier, which differentiates it from list-style siblings. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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