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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: no authentication and no network call, which tells the agent this is a safe, fast, offline check.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause ('report configured connection state', 'without logging in', 'without making a network call') carries distinct information.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the main missing piece is what 'configured connection state' actually returns (boolean, status string, structured object). The description is otherwise adequate for a low-complexity read-only check.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify or omit.

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 ('Report') and resource ('configured connection state') and clarifies the operation happens without login or network I/O. This distinguishes it from the sibling list/get tools, which presumably fetch remote data, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'without logging in or making a network call' implies a use case (cheap local pre-flight check), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like readSiteConfiguration.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real content disclosure beyond the annotations — that returned data contains no SSID passwords — which tells the agent what sensitive fields will and won't be present. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the non-obvious security detail second. No redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition provides enough to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is the meaning/format of siteId, which neither the schema nor description resolves.

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 0%, so the schema gives no meaning for siteId beyond type and minLength. The phrase 'the selected site' loosely ties the parameter to a site identifier, but the description never names siteId or says whether it accepts a numeric or string ID. It partially compensates for the coverage gap without fully closing it.

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 (read) and resource (VLAN/subnet/DHCP settings for a site), which is concrete enough for an agent to know what it returns. It doesn't explicitly name itself relative to siblings, but the siblings listed (listSites, listDevices, getConnectionStatus) cover different resources, so confusion risk is low.

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?

'For the selected site' implies the tool is site-scoped and requires a site context, which is the only usage hint. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: it returns only 'active' clients, implying inactive clients are excluded. It does not disclose pagination, return format, or how site selection is determined.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.

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 is simple (one required parameter, rich annotations, no output schema), so the description does not need extensive detail. Still, it should explain how to obtain siteId and whether results are paginated or filtered beyond 'active,' which it does not.

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 for the single required siteId parameter. It only says 'for the selected site,' which loosely maps to siteId but gives no format, source (e.g., from listSites), or constraints. This does not sufficiently compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ('List active clients') with a clear scope ('for the selected site'). It is distinguishable from siblings like listDevices and listSites, though it does not explicitly name the boundary between clients and devices.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for the selected site,' which signals that a site must already be selected. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus listDevices or listSites, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context — only *adopted* devices are returned, implying unadopted/pending ones are excluded — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple, well-annotated read tool this is close to adequate: the filter and the adopted-only constraint are conveyed. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no output schema, the definition should say at minimum that siteId is required and how to obtain it.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description gestures at it via "the selected site" but never names siteId or explains its expected format or provenance. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves the one input underspecified.

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 and resource ("List adopted devices") plus a scope ("for the selected site"). The word "adopted" is a meaningful domain qualifier that distinguishes these from unprovisioned devices, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like listClients.

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 among the siblings (listClients, getLanNetworks). Only a weak implication that a site must already be selected before calling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added value is the credential-scoping note, which tells the agent results are limited to what the configured credential can see. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination 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?

A single ten-word sentence with no filler, and the credential-scoping qualifier — the most decision-relevant part — is included rather than buried. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. The gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not hint at what a returned site looks like or roughly how many to expect, which would help an agent plan subsequent calls.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain — baseline 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-evident and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 and resource ("List sites") plus a scope qualifier ("available to the configured credential"). It is distinguishable from siblings like listDevices and listClients by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with readSiteConfiguration.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before readSiteConfiguration, but the description never says when to call it, what precedes it, or what to do with the result. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: unknown datasets are rejected and there is no path/method passthrough, implying strict validation errors. It says nothing about permissions, defaults, or response shape.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the constraint follows immediately after the purpose. Brevity is a virtue here, though the second sentence could be folded into a clause.

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 0% parameter documentation, the description should compensate and does not: it omits siteId semantics, never indicates what a returned dataset looks like, and gives no size/shape expectations. For a 23-way enum read tool this leaves real gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does not. The optional siteId parameter is never mentioned — an agent cannot tell whether omitting it means "current site" or something else — and the 23-value dataset enum is left entirely to 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?

The verb+resource ("Read one fixed configuration dataset") is identifiable, but "dataset" stays abstract and the description never says this is site configuration data keyed by the schema's enum. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as getLanNetworks, which appears to overlap with the lanNetworks dataset.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit "read config" framing. There is no mention of how this relates to getLanNetworks or the list* siblings, which an agent would need to route correctly.

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