dhcp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the return content (active state, address range, lease duration) but says nothing about permissions, whether it's read-only (though the name implies read), rate limits, or what happens if DHCP is disabled. With no annotations, this is a significant gap for a status tool that could be called frequently.

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 that front-loads the resource and then specifies the key data points. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of what is returned. However, it lacks any indication of the return structure (e.g., whether lease duration is in seconds or a formatted string) and does not mention potential error conditions or empty states. For a status tool, it's adequate but not complete.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters. It doesn't add parameter information, but none is needed.

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 states a specific resource (current DHCP configuration) and enumerates what is returned (active state, address range, lease duration). It's clear what the tool does, though the French phrasing 'Configuration DHCP courante' is slightly less direct than a verb-first formulation. Sibling differentiation is implied by the '_status' suffix (dhcp_status vs dhcp_set), but not explicitly 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 use this tool versus alternatives. The name suggests it's a read operation for current DHCP settings, and the sibling list includes dhcp_set for configuration changes, but the description never mentions this distinction or any preconditions. For a status tool in a network management suite, the absence of 'use this to read, use dhcp_set to modify' is a gap.

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