cvcue_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 does disclose the default scope (currently connected only) and the shape of returned records, and 'List' plus the GET endpoint implies a read-only operation. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, total counts, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are meaningful gaps for an 8-parameter list tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by the important default-scope caveat. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields is genuinely necessary and present. The remaining gap is modest: nothing on pagination semantics or how results are ordered, but for a filtered list tool with fully documented parameters this is close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented with meaning and defaults. The description adds essentially no parameter-level detail beyond restating the default active-only behavior, so the schema does all the work and 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Wi-Fi clients') and even names the backing endpoint (GET /clients), plus enumerates the returned fields (SSID, AP, signal, protocol, data rates, IP, username, OS). It implicitly separates itself from cvcue_list_wired_clients by saying 'Wi-Fi', but never explicitly distinguishes itself from cvcue_find_client, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 only usage signal is 'Defaults to currently connected clients', which hints that historic lookups require the active flag. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus cvcue_find_client, cvcue_list_wired_clients, or cvcue_client_health_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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