cvcue_client_events

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the implicit default filter (Failures only, 24h window), which is the main way an agent could misread results, and 'logs reported by APs' implies a read-only query. It omits pagination behavior, expected result volume, and any ordering or retention characteristics of the returned records.

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 identifies the resource, the reporter (APs), and the default filter with no filler. The parenthetical event list earns its space by clarifying scope, and nothing is repeated.

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 an 8-parameter but fully schema-documented read tool with no annotations, the description supplies the essential scope and the surprising default. The main remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against cvcue_query_events and cvcue_client_association_history; a brief note on what a returned event record contains would also help since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented, including the Failure default for event_type and the 24h default for hours. The description restates those defaults rather than adding new meaning (e.g., how the SSID/AP name patterns are matched, or how location_id scoping interacts with ap_name filtering), so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb+resource (client connection event logs reported by APs) and enumerates the event categories covered (association, authentication, DHCP, DNS, roaming), which makes the data set concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings like cvcue_query_events, cvcue_event_summary, or cvcue_client_association_history, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these to pick.

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 is only implied: 'defaults to failures in the last 24h' tells the agent what happens if it calls with no arguments, which is a useful entry hint for troubleshooting. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over generic event querying or client association history, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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