get_device_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what data is returned ('activity... including connected clients and their traffic') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a real-time or historical query, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and included data without redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the complexity (a query tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It hints at return data but doesn't detail the structure (e.g., what 'activity' entails, traffic metrics format, or client details). Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior and results is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'mac' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on MAC address format, examples, or how it relates to device types (AP or switch mentioned in schema), so it doesn't add value here.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'activity for a specific device', specifying it includes 'connected clients and their traffic'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_clients' (general client list) and 'get_devices' (device list) by focusing on activity for a single device. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a device MAC from 'get_devices' first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_clients' (which might list clients without device-specific activity). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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