list_known_clients

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

Annotations declare readOnly/ idempotent/ openWorld. Description adds context: data from classic REST API, works across VLANs, no firewall limitations, and lists specific fields returned. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose, then lists key fields, then usage advice. No fluff; efficiently structured.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns, its data source, and its advantages. Complete enough for an agent to understand usage and output.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Description adds value by listing the return fields (oui, hostname, etc.) even though not strictly parameter-related. With 0 params, it compensates well for missing output schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists all historically known clients with rich metadata, distinguishes from siblings like list_clients and get_client by specifying scope and unique fields (oui, hostname, etc.). Verb 'list' + resource 'historically known clients' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this as the 'FIRST identification tool for unknown clients' and explains why (oui identifies manufacturer without scanning). Also notes advantages over alternatives like nmap/dns-sd (no firewall limitations).

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