iap_get_clients

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are paginated instead of returned all at once, but it omits important behavior such as what happens when no target is specified, whether authentication or connectivity is required, and how paging actually advances. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no redundant wording. It says what the tool returns and its pagination behavior concisely, though it is so brief that it underserves several important operational details.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to select the target IAP or cluster, what include_extra does, or how the absence of required parameters is handled. The output schema helps with response shape, but the invocation context is materially underdescribed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description needed to compensate, but it only indirectly implies that limit and offset control pagination via 'one page at a time.' The meaning of iap_ip_addr, cluster_name, and especially include_extra is left to name inference and the bare schema titles.

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 and resource: it returns connected wireless clients, and explicitly notes pagination with 'one page at a time.' It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like iap_get_client_status, but the phrasing makes the list-vs-status distinction reasonably clear.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as iap_get_client_status or iap_get_ap_stats. It also fails to mention whether iap_ip_addr, cluster_name, or some other target is required, so the conditions for using it are left entirely to inference.

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