Get AdGuard Home configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it resolves the add-on via Supervisor, hits the local API at 127.0.0.1:45158, discloses that dhcp is reduced to enabled/interface_name with no leases, that custom rules are truncated to 20, and that failures are returned as per-section `{error, detail}` objects rather than aborting. It also names the concrete error codes and the SUPERVISOR_TOKEN requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its sections, then usage, then return shape, then errors — a clean scannable order. It is long, and the enumerated internal API paths are more detail than most callers need, but each block (return contract, error list) earns its place for a multi-section read.

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 an output schema exists, the description still usefully spells out the top-level return keys and the per-section error form, lists every failure mode, and states 'changes nothing.' For a no-arg read of a multi-endpoint add-on, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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?

State a specific verb+resource: reads the AdGuard Home add-on's config, and enumerates exactly which sections (status, dns_info, filtering/status, safesearch, access, dhcp). It distinctly routes away from adguard_set_dns_config and adguard_check_host, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' (inspecting before changing, answering what upstreams/filters are active) and 'Not for' (setting DNS → adguard_set_dns_config; testing a domain → adguard_check_host). Both inclusion and exclusion conditions are stated with named alternatives.

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