cvcue_troubleshoot_client

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: partial failures (e.g. permission errors) are reported inline rather than aborting the call. It does not say that the operation is read-only, whether it is expensive/slow given it fans out across several subsystems, or how the composite result is structured.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then a compact enumeration of the sections returned, plus one sentence on failure handling. Every clause carries information; only minor tightening of the line-wrapped list would improve it.

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 aggregation tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned sections effectively substitutes for a return-value description, and the inline-failure note covers the main failure mode. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly with a MAC and an optional hour window is missing.

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 both mac_address and hours are already documented, and the description only reinforces the MAC scoping. 'Recent' hints at the look-back window but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema's 'default 24'.

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 resource (a single client, keyed by MAC) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: client record, associations, connection logs, failure events and root-cause inferences. The word 'one-shot' plus that enumeration separates it from narrower siblings such as cvcue_client_events or cvcue_client_association_history, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

'One-shot client troubleshooting' gives a clear context: reach for this when diagnosing one client rather than pulling individual data slices. It stops short of explicit exclusions or alternatives, so an agent must infer that the narrower sibling tools exist for focused queries and that bulk/multi-client work belongs to cvcue_list_clients.

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