list_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: it shows client type, MAC, IP, connection time, and authorization status. It also discloses that the tool can be used to detect roaming issues and unauthorized guests, which is useful beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 main purpose but then includes a lengthy guide on identifying unknown clients. While informative, this section could be condensed or placed in documentation. The length reduces quick readability for an AI agent.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists what is shown (client type, MAC, IP, connection time, authorization status). It also provides practical context like AP distribution checks and unauthorized guest detection, making it complete for a list tool.

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% and the schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (filter and limit). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples for these parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 tool lists all currently connected clients with their type, MAC, IP, connection time, and authorization status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_known_clients (which lists known clients) by specifying 'all currently connected clients' and focusing on live client distribution.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: checking client distribution across APs to detect roaming or placement issues, and checking for unauthorized guests. It also provides a step-by-step guide for identifying unknown clients. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the detailed guidance implies its primary use.

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