List connected clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The one piece of added value is the "currently connected" scoping statement — it tells the agent that offline or historical clients are excluded, a real behavioral fact. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, or permission requirements.

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?

One short sentence fragment with zero padding, so there is no waste and the scope qualifier is front-loaded. However, this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the brevity comes at the cost of all the information the six-character schema and 0% parameter coverage leave missing.

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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no pagination or filter semantics anywhere in the structured fields, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. The tool's own schema is richer in what it constrains (limit max 200, offset minimum 0) than the description is in what it explains.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it carries none. The opaque `filter` string has no documented syntax, and `limit`/`offset` have no stated defaults, caps, or interaction — an agent cannot construct a filtered or paginated call from this.

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?

"Currently connected clients on the site" names the resource and adds a scope qualifier (only currently connected, not historical/offline), which is genuinely useful. But it is a noun fragment with no verb (list/retrieve) and it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as unifi_net_get_client (single-client lookup) or unifi_gen_getconnectedclientoverviewpage.

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 guidance on when to use this versus unifi_net_get_client or the connected-client overview page tool. The only implicit hint is the "currently connected" scope, from which an agent must infer the when-to-use condition itself; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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