list_all_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it while adding useful scope context: it includes offline clients and is the superset of list_clients. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral details. This is consistent with calibration: annotation covers safety, description adds modest supporting context.

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 with the core purpose, then immediately clarifies scope and alternatives, then gives a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and clear sibling routing, the description is nearly complete. It does not detail the exact return fields or pagination, and there is no output schema, but the core selection and usage context are all present.

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 description's Args section essentially repeats the schema text without adding new meaning. Both parameters are already fully documented, so there is no need for the description to compensate; 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('every known client (connected and offline) on a site'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_clients as the superset. This lets an agent understand the scope without needing to inspect schemas.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives: use get_client_details for deep per-client detail, and list_clients when only active connections are needed. This provides direct routing guidance among closely related tools.

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