trace_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('event timeline, type counts, and highlighted failures') and implies a read-only diagnostic nature via the verb 'trace'. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any limitations or authorization requirements. While acceptable, it leaves some behavioral details unstated.

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 containing the action, purpose, and expected outputs. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet information-dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It explicitly lists 'event timeline, type counts, and highlighted failures', which covers the key output. The presence of the duration parameter is implied by the lookback context. It could mention how to interpret failures or whether results are ordered, but overall it provides sufficient context for a diagnostic tool of moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%: each parameter has a clear description (mac, org_id, duration). The tool description reinforces the purpose but does not add new semantic details about parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents them sufficiently.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Trace' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a wireless client's recent connection events'. It enumerates event types (association, auth, DHCP, roam, disconnect) and explicitly states the purpose: 'to troubleshoot why it can't connect or roams poorly'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clients or find_client, which list clients rather than trace event sequences.

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 indicates when to use the tool: 'to troubleshoot why it can't connect or roams poorly'. This provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5 which requires explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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