cvcue_client_association_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does imply a read-only history lookup and hints at the returned fields (AP, SSID, timestamp), but it gives no retention window for 'recent', no cap on number of records returned, and no indication of what happens for an unknown or never-seen MAC address.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical return summary is placed immediately after the core statement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, and the description conveys the essential shape of the result. The only meaningful gap is the undefined 'recent' time window, which the agent would need in order to interpret the data correctly.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines mac_address as 'Client MAC address'. The description adds no format details (colon-delimited vs bare hex) or case sensitivity beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely ('associations for a client') and parenthetically enumerates what is returned (APs/SSIDs joined and when), which is more informative than the tool name alone. It does not distinguish this from neighboring client tools such as cvcue_client_events or cvcue_troubleshoot_client, which likely surface overlapping data, 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus cvcue_client_events, cvcue_find_client, or cvcue_troubleshoot_client, and no prerequisites (does the client need to be currently connected, must it be on this controller). The word 'recent' is left undefined, so the agent cannot tell whether this covers minutes or days.

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