get_clients_by_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'get' operation, but it does not clarify whether 'connected devices' includes only currently online devices or all known devices, nor does it disclose any other behavioral details. The ambiguity with sibling tools like get_offline_devices leaves a gap, though the read-only nature is evident.

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 concise, with two short sentences. The second sentence 'Shows which devices are on each network' is somewhat redundant with the first but adds a minor clarification about the output orientation. It could be trimmed, but it is not verbose and the key information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context to understand the grouping function. However, it could benefit from clarifying the inclusion criteria (online vs. all devices) and the return format, especially given the presence of sibling tools like get_offline_devices. This slight gap keeps it from a 5.

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 schema provides a complete description for the single 'count' parameter (default 500, max 5000). The description text itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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's function with the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'connected devices grouped by network segment/VLAN'. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_devices and get_vlans, and the second sentence reinforces the grouping behavior.

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 implies usage when a per-network view of devices is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_devices or get_offline_devices. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, but the clear context of grouping provides a reasonable usage signal.

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