MagicDNS / DNS status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The description does add real context beyond annotations: the 100.100.100.100 forwarder address, the specific configuration categories returned, and the equivalent CLI invocation for verification. It does not state auth requirements or output shape.

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?

One tight sentence: the subject (DNS forwarder / MagicDNS config) is front-loaded, the enumerated return contents follow, and the read-only constraint and CLI equivalent are appended without waste. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does by naming resolvers, split-DNS, and cert domains. It is adequate for a single optional-flag read tool, though it could note whether results are scoped to the current profile or whether the call requires a running daemon/connection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'all' parameter ('Include the full DNS configuration detail'), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description never references the detail toggle or any flag syntax, adding nothing on this dimension — the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource (internal DNS forwarder / MagicDNS configuration), then enumerates what is reported: resolvers, split-DNS, cert domains. No sibling tool touches DNS, so the resource naming alone cleanly separates it from tailscale_status, tailscale_get_prefs, and tailscale_netcheck.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'DNS status' scope plus 'Read-only' tells an agent this is an inspection call for MagicDNS/split-DNS state, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or comparison against inspection siblings like tailscale_status or tailscale_netcheck. No exclusion conditions are given.

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