list_clients

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it while adding temporal nuance: only clients with an active connection at query time are returned. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation first, then read-only scope, then sibling alternatives, and finally the parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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 optional-parameter read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how it differs from nearby tools, and what the parameters mean. No output schema is present, but none is needed for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 mirrors the schema text for site and device. It adds no new meaning beyond what the input schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'List all currently connected (online) clients on a site.' Explicitly differentiates from list_all_clients and get_client_details, so an agent can identify this tool's exact scope.

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?

Gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to use alternatives: use this for active connections at query time, list_all_clients for historical/known roster, and get_client_details for deep per-client detail. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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