get_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool is read-only (lists clients) and scopes results org-wide or to a site, but it does not mention pagination, required permissions, data freshness, or any other operational behaviors. The 'currently connected' qualifier adds some transparency about the state of data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action, resource, and scope, earning its place entirely.

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 lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple, low-complexity list operation. It specifies the core function and scope, and the lack of return format details is acceptable for a listing tool. The only minor gap is not naming alternative tools for edge cases.

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% with both parameters described as optional. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining how the parameters affect scope: org-wide when site_id is omitted, or restricted to a single site when provided. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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') and resource ('wireless clients'), and clearly states scope ('org-wide or for one site'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wired_clients and find_client, which target different client types or purposes.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: to list currently connected wireless clients at an org or site level. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, but the scope options are clearly communicated, making it easy to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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