listClients

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful return-field detail and clarifies current connected scope, but it omits pagination, rate limits, and whether “all” results are truly unpaged.

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 front-loaded across three efficient sentences with no wasted wording. The return-field list is long but justified because there is no output schema.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and usage context adequately. The main missing piece is pagination or result-limit behavior for a list-all operation.

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% for the single optional siteId parameter, including the default-site behavior and listSites discovery hint. The description only implies site scoping and adds no parameter meaning beyond 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 description gives a specific verb and resource: listing network clients, scoped to a site and covering wired and wireless devices. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as getClientDetail, listMostActiveClients, or listClientsActivity.

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?

It states clear usage contexts: auditing connected devices or finding a specific client by name or MAC. It does not name when-not-to-use cases or a specific alternative sibling, and the name/MAC lookup relies on filtering the returned list because the schema has no search parameter.

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