unifi_list_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation and mentions 'active connected' as a scope, but it does not define what 'active' means (e.g., real-time vs. last-seen threshold), nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. The field list adds some context, but behavioral traits are only lightly covered.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the specific output fields, with no wasted words or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for a tool with no parameters.

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 simple tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the output content via the parenthetical field list. It could be more complete with an explicit pointer to the historical or device sibling tool, but the low complexity means this is not a major gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter details. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not harm that.

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 opens with the verb 'List', names the specific resource 'active connected client devices', and enumerates the data fields (IP, MAC, hostname, signal, bandwidth, network). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_list_devices (which likely lists infrastructure) and unifi_get_all_clients_history (historical).

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 phrase 'active connected' implies this is for current clients, which separates it from the historical tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like unifi_list_devices or unifi_get_all_clients_history, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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