list_clients_by_organization

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

The description affirms the read-only behavior, adds that the result contains persisted MAC-based identities, and discloses the error condition for missing/conflicting filters. Since the readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, the description adds meaningful operational context without contradicting the annotation.

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 opening sentences are tight, front-loaded, and high-value. The Args section mostly duplicates schema descriptions, adding minor redundancy, but the overall length is still proportionate and the layout is clear.

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?

All needed info is present: what is returned, the required filter constraint, error behavior, defaults, and a sibling pointer for discovering valid group names. The absence of an output schema is mitigated because the description states the return content (client keys/MACs).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial semantic above the schema: the exact-one-of requirement for tag/group, which the schema's optional fields would otherwise obscure. It also explains site and device defaults, though this largely mirrors the schema descriptions.

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 names a specific operation ('List stable client identities') and a precise scope ('for exactly one local tag or group'). It also clarifies it returns persisted client keys (MACs), making the resource unambiguous. The pointer to list_client_groups further separates it from group-management siblings.

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?

It gives explicit invocation constraints: exactly one of tag or group must be supplied, and neither/both is an error. It also directs the agent to list_client_groups for discovering group names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_clients or list_all_clients, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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