Get DNS configuration (unified)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered without the description. The description adds the useful scoping note that the response is the unified view spanning four sub-configs. It doesn't describe return shape or the openWorldHint implication, so it adds moderate value.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb+resource and packs the payload contents in compactly. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 no-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete: the agent knows what it returns and that it is a safe unified read. There's no output schema, but the description enumerates the top-level contents, which largely compensates.

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 the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly never invents parameters, staying consistent with the empty input schema.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a precise resource (unified DNS configuration for your tailnet), and it enumerates exactly what the unified payload contains: nameservers, search paths, split DNS, and MagicDNS preference. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like tailscale_get_nameservers, tailscale_get_split_dns, and tailscale_get_dns_preferences.

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 phrase 'in a single call' implicitly signals when to prefer this over the granular getters (get_nameservers, get_split_dns, get_dns_preferences), giving the agent a clear selection rationale. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.

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