get_wired_clients

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

With no annotations, the description must self-disclose. It clarifies what constitutes a wired client (devices on switch ports) and specifies the returned fields (switch MAC, port, VLAN, IP, vendor). It also notes optional filters. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, the behavioral context 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?

Two sentences total. The first sentence immediately states the action and scope, the second describes filters and the relationship to get_clients. Zero waste.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the tool's purpose, filter set, and sibling differentiation. It omits org_id and duration details, but those are in the schema. For a straightforward list operation, the description 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?

Schema covers 100% of the 5 parameters with descriptions. The description additionally names mac, hostname, and site_id as optional filters, reinforcing the schema. It does not mention org_id or duration, but the schema already documents those. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description starts with 'List wired clients' providing a specific verb and resource, clarifies scope with 'devices seen on switch ports,' and lists output fields. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_clients by noting 'Complements get_clients (wireless).'

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?

States the tool is for wired clients and explicitly mentions 'Complements get_clients (wireless)' to differentiate from the wireless counterpart. It also lists optional filters, implying when to use them. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives beyond get_clients.

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