ddns_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word "courante" weakly implies a read-only snapshot, but it says nothing about whether this requires authentication, whether it reflects the running config or the persisted config, or what triggers a change. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe what the status response contains (provider, hostname, update interval, enabled state). Instead it only names the concept, leaving the agent unable to predict the return payload for a tool whose entire value is its output.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 phrase "Configuration DNS dynamique courante" identifies the resource (dynamic DNS configuration) and implies a read of the current state, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from the sibling ddns_set. An agent can guess it reads DDNS config, but the tool's action is only inferred from the name, not stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ddns_set or any other sibling. The status/set pairing is inferable from the names alone, but the description contributes nothing about context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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