dhcp_leases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. The [READ] prefix signals it's a read operation, which helps, and it lists the exact fields returned (IP, MAC, hostname, state). However, it doesn't disclose whether the firewall is authoritative, pagination behavior, or what 'online' means precisely. For a read tool the [READ] prefix provides baseline transparency, but the burden isn't fully met.

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?

Extremely concise — two sentences plus an args section. Every word earns its place. The [READ] prefix, field list, and param explanations are all high-value. Zero waste.

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?

This is a simple read tool with 2 optional params, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers purpose, returned fields, and both params adequately for a straightforward lease-listing tool. It could note the relationship to dhcp_static_mappings for completeness, but the core usage is well-covered.

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. Both params are explained: online_only filters to online leases, and target names the firewall from config with a default fallback. This provides meaning beyond the bare schema types (boolean, string/null). Well done for both parameters.

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 it lists active DHCP leases with IP, MAC, hostname, and state. The [READ] prefix and verb 'Active DHCP leases' make the purpose clear. It distinguishes from dhcp_static_mappings (which is about static configs) and other read tools, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling distinction.

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 implies usage for inspecting active DHCP leases but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like dhcp_static_mappings. The 'online_only' filter and 'target' parameter suggest usage context (firewall-specific queries), but there's no explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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