list_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the default full drain behavior, the {data, totalCount} return shape, manual pagination semantics, how client_type is translated to an upstream filter, that the raw type parameter is ignored, mutual exclusivity with filter, and the incomplete=true behavior for capped drains. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core purpose, then uses clear parameter-by-parameter notes. Given six parameters and multiple non-obvious behaviors, the length is justified and well organized.

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 is complete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It covers all parameters, pagination, return shape, filtering behavior, error case for mutually exclusive options, and partial-drain semantics. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter meaningfully: host formats (console name, ID, composite MAC:numericId), site as name or ID, offset/limit for manual paging, client_type allowed values and default, and filter as an upstream Network Integration API expression. This goes far beyond the bare schema types.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List connected clients for a site.' It clearly scopes the operation to connected clients and requires host/site context, which helps distinguish it from broader tools like list_all_clients or list_known_clients. The one-line opening is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 explains when to use the default drain behavior versus manual offset/limit pagination, and when to use client_type versus an explicit filter. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give a 'when not to use' exclusion, but the context for using this tool is clear and actionable.

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