list_active_clients_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It reveals the return type (a list of client stat objects) and names the underlying endpoint (/stat/sta), but does not define what 'active' means, whether results are limited, paginated, or require permissions. This leaves major behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 three short, purposeful sentences: purpose first, then parameter explanations, then a return note. There is no filler or repetition of the schema. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 list operation with no output schema or annotations, the description gives only a high-level return description and some parameter context. It does not clarify the scope of 'active' clients, possible errors, or return object details beyond the three named metrics. This is adequate for basic usage but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 only defines two string properties with no descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining the accepted formats for host (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId) and site (name or ID). This gives an agent enough to construct valid values. Minor ambiguity remains around what a 'composite ID' is precisely.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('detailed per-client statistics') plus the data types (traffic, signal strength, experience score). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_clients or get_client, which deal with client records rather than statistics. It is a clear, non-tautological statement.

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 explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and no alternatives are named. The intended usage is only implied by the descriptive verb and resource. An agent could infer it is for stats retrieval, but not why it should be chosen over similar stat tools like list_device_stats or get_historical_stats.

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