list_clients

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it lists connected wireless clients with details but lacks information on pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns real-time data. Adequate for a read operation but not rich.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with purpose, then lists returned fields and parameters. Somewhat sparse but no wasted words. Could benefit from a bit more structure, but effective.

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's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, return fields, filters, and sibling alternative. Missing details like result ordering or scope, but sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 0%, but description adds full meaning: each parameter's purpose (filter by SSID/band), match type (exact match, server-side), and default behavior (empty for all). Compensates completely.

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 lists connected wireless clients with connection details, using specific verb 'List' and resource 'clients'. It distinguishes from sibling 'find_client_by_mac' by noting that tool is for full details of a single client.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (list all clients with filters) and when not (for single client full details, use find_client_by_mac). Also explains behavior of empty filter parameters.

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