v2_clients

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine non-obvious context beyond them: this build's endpoint carries NO RSSI, SSID, AP or rate data, and explicitly says so rather than inventing it. That up-front data-availability caveat prevents an agent from fabricating or requesting fields that won't exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned field list, then the data-availability caveat, then the mac usage note — a logical ordering with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and warns which fields are absent, which is exactly what an agent needs here. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit and siteId parameters, which the description does not cover.

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 description coverage is only 33% — mac has a description, while limit and siteId are bare. The description meaningfully adds to mac (single client's full detail: vendor, OS, device type, IP settings, rate limit), but says nothing about limit (pagination?) or siteId (scoping?), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap. Baseline 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 names the resource (known-client list) and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, MAC, vendor, wired/wireless, VLAN, traffic totals, last seen, blocked state), so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives like v2_client_history or v2_past_connections, which share the client domain, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage guidance is implicitly encoded via the mac conditional: 'Pass a mac to get that one client's full detail.' That tells the agent how to switch between list and single-record modes, but it never states when to prefer this over sibling client-history/connection tools, so context is only partial.

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