wetrack_list_clients

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Retrieve list' signals a read-only operation, and 'accessible by the current user' communicates authorization scoping. It does not mention auth prerequisites, pagination, or absence of side effects explicitly, leaving some gaps.

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 with no redundant filler. Every phrase adds meaning: verb, resource, and scope.

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 a zero-parameter list operation with an output schema available, this is largely complete: it names the returned entity and the user-scoping rule. The only notable omission is clarifying its relationship to the similarly named wetrack_list_organisations sibling, so it stops just short of full completeness.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description's reference to 'client organisations' supplies the conceptual entity for the empty schema, meeting the 0-parameter baseline.

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 ('Retrieve list') and a concrete resource ('client organisations'), scoped to the current user's accessibility. It clearly conveys what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar sibling wetrack_list_organisations.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over wetrack_list_organisations, wetrack_get_client, or other list tools. The scope phrase 'accessible by the current user' provides some context, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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