list_all_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool fans out requests to every site and aggregates results with source host/site annotations, which is meaningful beyond the function name. It does not mention potential performance costs or failure behavior, but the disclosed fan-out and aggregation behavior is substantial.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the fan-out and annotation behavior, and the third documents the parameter. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

The description, combined with the presence of an output schema and a single optional parameter, covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its cross-site behavior, the aggregated result annotations, and the parameter's role. It could additionally warn about the cost or latency of fanning out to every site, but nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The input schema only defines key_label as a nullable string with a default, but the description adds meaning by stating "key_label: scope query to consoles visible to a specific API key." This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives the agent actionable guidance on how the parameter affects behavior. It does not specify allowed values or where to find the label, but it is sufficient for one optional parameter.

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 states the exact verb and resource: "List all connected clients across all sites." It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_clients by emphasizing the cross-site scope and the aggregation behavior. The agent can tell exactly what this tool does without needing to infer from the name.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing clients across all sites, contrasting with any site-scoped alternative. It says "across all sites" and "Fans out requests to every site," which gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.