list_known_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 well: it states the endpoint, notes the response is passed through verbatim including identifiers, and enumerates returned fields. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation the disclosed details are 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 well-structured: purpose first, then sibling differentiation, then parameter semantics, then output fields. Every sentence adds useful information and none are redundant.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, the meaning of both parameters, and how this tool differs from related tools. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, but the description fully documents both parameters: host accepts 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and site accepts 'site name or ID'. This adds critical format information beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the full per-site client roster incl. offline history', and immediately distinguishes it from list_active_clients_stats and list_all_clients. An agent can clearly tell this tool from its siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with list_active_clients_stats ('currently-connected only') and list_all_clients ('fleet-wide aggregation'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also confirms the HTTP method (GET), which further clarifies expected behavior.

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