dsl_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral. It does not state that this is a read-only query, whether it requires an established DSL connection, whether the values are instantaneous or averaged, or how it behaves during a sync loss — all relevant for a line-status tool.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification — a colon-delimited keyword list rather than a sentence. Front-loading the resource is good, but the phrasing reads like a label, not guidance.

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?

A zero-parameter read with an output schema means the return values need no explanation, so the bar is low and the field list is largely sufficient for calling it. Still, with no annotations and no usage framing, an agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right pick among the ten siblings.

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 clarify beyond the schema; baseline 4 applies. The listed metric names are context about the return payload rather than parameter meaning, which is a reasonable use of the space.

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 is a noun phrase listing the DSL line's reported metrics (Sync, Maximalrate, Marge, Dämpfung, CRC/FEC) rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action (fetch current status) must be inferred from the tool name. It does, however, identify the resource and distinguish the content from siblings like wlan_status or mesh_uebersicht by naming DSL-specific fields.

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 indication of when to use this tool instead of zugang_pruefen, protokoll, or the other status-oriented siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no note that this reports live link metrics rather than diagnostics history.

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