nat_get_upnp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the call is a non-mutating read, nor what the returned state contains (e.g. enabled/disabled), nor any error conditions. For a zero-argument status probe this is low-risk, but the disclosure is still thin.

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 follows with a clarifying gloss. Nothing is wasted, though the gloss about UPnP is more contextual help than operational 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?

For a 0-param read tool with no output schema, the description identifies the subject and briefly defines UPnP, which is the minimum an agent needs. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned state or its relationship to nat_set_upnp.

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 no parameter semantics for the description to add. The 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied by an empty object.

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?

States a specific resource (UPnP) and aspect (its status/state), and the parenthetical explains what UPnP does. The read verb is only implied by 'État' and the get_ prefix rather than stated outright, and it does not name the sibling nat_set_upnp it pairs with, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the nat_set_upnp alternative, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a read counterpart to the set operation.

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