get_client_experience_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation.' It adds useful context about what the report summarizes: signal-strength distribution, roaming stats, failed connections, and problematic clients. This goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations about the tool's 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, then usage alternatives, then parameters. It is appropriately concise, though the Args section is redundant with the input schema. Every non-arg sentence earns its place.

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 read-only report tool with two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description is complete. It explains what the report contains, how to choose among related tools, and what the parameter defaults are. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough information about the report's content to set expectations.

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%, and the Args section in the description essentially duplicates the schema descriptions without adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation fully; the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a client experience report with connection-quality metrics for a site.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming troubleshoot_client and get_device_health_summary, so an agent can distinguish it from other reporting and client-related tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is given for when to use which tool: troubleshoot_client for a deep dive on one specific client, get_device_health_summary for infrastructure view, and this tool for client-side summary metrics. This provides clear selection criteria beyond simple names.

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