get_nac_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation without side effects, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any caveats about data freshness. The description is accurate but lacks depth beyond the basic 'List' behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb 'List' and the resource, and efficiently includes the key output fields and filters without redundancy. Every sentence contributes 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 no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (user, client type, auth type, SSID, VLAN, matched auth rule, status) and lists the optional filters, covering what the caller can expect. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool with optional filters, this is reasonably complete. Slight gap: no explicit guidance on prerequisites or typical use cases, but the listed fields and filters are sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by repeating the filter names (mac, auth_type, type) but does not explain parameter formats, defaults beyond 'duration', or how the filters interact. It does not compensate beyond the schema's already detailed 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 clearly states 'List Access Assurance (NAC) clients authenticated to the network' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the returned fields (user, client type, auth type, SSID, VLAN, rule, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clients or get_wired_clients by focusing on NAC-specific details.

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 by listing the tool's purpose and optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_client or get_clients. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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