dhcp_client

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

Without any annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, whether authentication is required, or how results are structured. The phrase 'per interface' is ambiguous without a parameter.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action word 'Status'. However, it mixes languages (Indonesian) which might reduce clarity for non-Indonesian speakers.

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 simple parameterless tool, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain the return format, what 'per interface' means without an interface filter, or any error conditions. More context would improve agent understanding.

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?

There are no parameters, so the parameter semantics burden is low. The description adds the context 'per interface' beyond the empty schema, but it does not clarify how this is handled without a parameter. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given zero parameters and 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves the status of the DHCP client, specifically the WAN IP from ISP, per interface. It uses a specific verb ('Status') and resource ('DHCP client'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like dhcp_leases or dhcp_servers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dhcp_leases or list_interfaces. The description lacks information about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a broader workflow.

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