iap_get_client_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it returns status, which is nearly tautological with the tool name, and does not disclose side effects, error behavior, permission requirements, or target selection 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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though it prioritizes brevity over useful context.

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 that there are no annotations and three parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to specify the target IAP, how the optional parameters interact, or what output to expect despite the output schema existing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by identifying MAC address as the lookup key, but it does not explain the purpose of iap_ip_addr or cluster_name, leaving two optional parameters semantically unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('status of one wireless client'), and a lookup key ('by MAC address'), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like iap_get_clients. This is clear and actionable.

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 that this tool is for retrieving a single client's status by MAC address, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of iap_get_clients or other sibling tools. No alternative routing or exclusions are provided.

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