nat_get_dmz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "État" implies a read-only inspection, and the parenthetical clarifies what DMZ means, but it does not disclose the returned state shape, auth requirements, or whether the DMZ can be enabled/disabled.

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 the key noun and a clarifying definition; front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably too terse to earn a 5 given the missing behavioral context.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but says nothing about the possible returned states (enabled/disabled, host address), which an agent would want before invoking.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (DMZ) and read intent ("État"), and parenthetically defines DMZ as a host exposed directly to the Internet. It is distinguishable from the sibling nat_set_dmz by the read-vs-write verb, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 nat_set_dmz, firewall_status, or wan_status. The read-only status-check intent is only implied by the word "État", leaving the agent to infer context.

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