list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is read-only in nature via the word 'List' and clarifies the 'currently online' status, but it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., behavior when MAC is not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is acceptable but minimal for a read operation.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and efficiently conveys both the default list behavior and the optional single-client lookup in 14 words.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the schema and output schema provide structured context. The description covers the main behavior and adds the 'currently online' nuance. It is not fully complete because it omits usage differentiation from siblings, but it is otherwise sufficient for a basic list tool.

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 already fully describes the 'mac' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds semantic value by explaining that the MAC is used to 'fetch a single client', which clarifies that this is not a filter but a direct lookup. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('clients'), with the additional scope of 'currently online (connected)' and optional single-client fetch by MAC. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_active_clients', which appears to serve an identical purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions when to prefer list_clients over list_active_clients, list_clients_history, or stat_client, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the large number of sibling list tools, this is a significant gap.

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