list_wifi_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read and discloses the returned fields (SSID, MAC, IP, signal, AP), which is real value, but says nothing about whether it queries the live controller vs cached data, VDOM scoping behavior, or what happens if no clients are associated.

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 parenthetical-rich sentence with zero waste and the key noun front-loaded. It is arguably too terse, since no guidance sentence follows, which keeps it off a 5.

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 two-parameter list tool the core need is covered, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned attributes. Still, no pagination/limits or empty-result behavior is described, leaving gaps for an agent planning a call.

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%, so the schema already documents device_id and vdom. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and notably does not explain how scoping to a VDOM affects the result set. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('connected Wi-Fi clients'), then enumerates the fields returned. The distinction from siblings like list_wireless_ssids, list_managed_aps and list_rogue_aps is implicit in 'clients' rather than stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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 qualifier 'connected' is the only usage signal: it bounds the tool to currently associated stations rather than historical or disconnected ones. No exclusions, no alternatives, and no prerequisite context (e.g. device reachability) are given, leaving usage inferred.

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