get_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the client is not found. The parameter format hints are useful but do not convey behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose statement followed by clear, segmented parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are presumably covered elsewhere. The description supplies all parameter semantics and the source for client_id, making it largely complete for a simple get-by-ID operation. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage alternatives, but this is minor given the clarity of the tool's role.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all three required parameters. It defines host as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', site as 'site name or ID', and client_id as REQUIRED with a pointer to list_clients. This gives the agent everything needed to fill the parameters correctly.

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's function: 'Get details for a single client.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'single client' distinguishes it from list_clients and other client-related tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need details for one client. It explains how to format host and site parameters and explicitly instructs the agent to obtain client_id from list_clients. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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