List connected clients

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds the pagination behavior plus a signal that results are a live snapshot ('currently connected'). It does not disclose rate limits, maximum result set, or how pagination terminates, so it adds moderate value over the annotation.

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 terse sentences/fragments with the resource and fields front-loaded and no wasted words. The telegraphic field list is dense but appropriate for a list tool.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the client fields, plus noting pagination. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool, missing only pagination limits and the site-scoping requirement.

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 75% (page, pageSize, and searchKey are documented; siteId is not). The description only echoes pagination, which the schema's page/pageSize already convey, and does not clarify whether siteId is needed to scope 'a site' — no real value beyond the schema's baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Clients currently connected to a site') and enumerates the returned fields (name, MAC, IP, wired/wireless, SSID, signal, traffic), which makes the scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like omada_devices or omada_search_api, but the 'connected clients' framing is distinct enough to infer.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The phrase 'currently connected' implies a live-inventory use case, but an agent gets no guidance on choosing this over omada_devices or omada_search_api.

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