list_mobility_clients

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic draining of offset-paginated API pages (limit/offset, 200 max), which is a key behavioral trait. It also details the exact fields returned, including the wireless-only wifi_experience, and optional key_label behavior.

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 output fields, pagination behavior, and parameter explanations. Each sentence adds necessary context and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description needn't detail return values, but it does anyway. It covers pagination, field list, and parameter sources, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent. No critical information 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: workspace_id as the UUID from list_mobility_workspaces, device_id as the UUID from list_mobility_devices, and key_label as an optional routing label. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding without needing to inspect 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 clearly states the tool lists clients associated with a UMR device, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_clients and list_all_clients by scoping to mobility device clients. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool: after obtaining workspace_id from list_mobility_workspaces and device_id from list_mobility_devices. It also notes key_label for routing on a specific API key. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool versus other list clients tools.

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