get_client_mobility_trail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output is a time-series table but does not disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or data freshness. It is a read operation but not explicitly labeled as such. Adequate but lacks depth.

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 very concise: one sentence overview, then sentence on output and use case, then default time, then bullet-style parameter explanations. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, parameters with defaults, and use cases. Missing aspects like pagination or result limits, but overall complete for a simple query 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining mac_address format, start_at and end_at as RFC 3339 with defaults. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, though could be more precise about time format validation.

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 the tool gets roaming history for a wireless client as a time-series table, with specific details on what is shown (APs, time, SSID). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_clients or get_ap_status, which serve different purposes.

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 description explains the tool is useful for troubleshooting connectivity issues or tracking movement, and defaults to the last 3 hours. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the context implies it is for historical movement rather than real-time status.

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