v2_client_survival

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the operation is temporally two-phase (snapshot, wait, re-check) and produces a diff-style result, which an agent needs to know to interpret it correctly.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and followed by the use case. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 low-complexity, no-output-schema, read-only diagnostic, the description covers the mechanism and the trigger well. Its one real gap is the undocumented parameters, which slightly undercuts full completeness.

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 only 33% and the description never explains band, siteId, or waitSec semantics. 'Wait' loosely implies waitSec (whose default 90 is in the schema) but band scoping and which site is targeted are left entirely to inference.

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 states a concrete two-phase verb sequence (snapshot, wait, re-check) over a specific resource (wireless clients) and names the output (anything that disappeared). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like v2_clients or v2_client_history, which read state rather than diff it.

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 an explicit trigger — 'Run this after any RF or SSID change' — and states the motivating scenario (silent eviction of an IoT device). It does not name a specific alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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