Get DNS Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds context by enumerating exactly what configuration fields are read (upstream servers, cache size, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation metadata and helps the agent understand the return content.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that begins with the imperative verb 'Read' and immediately states the resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists all major fields that would be returned. However, it lacks details about potential error conditions or the exact structure of the response, but it is sufficient given the tool's low complexity and the presence of supportive annotations.

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 100% for the single optional parameter 'routerId', which the schema describes as 'Router ID; omit to use the default router.' The description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reads DNS resolver configuration and lists specific attributes: upstream servers, cache size, cache TTL, and remote DNS request allowance. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('DNS resolver configuration'), and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like manage_dns_settings (write) and get_ntp_settings (different resource).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that manage_dns_settings is used for modifications, nor does it specify any prerequisites or restrictions (e.g., router context). The agent must infer usage from the 'Read' verb alone.

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