Get DNS preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only added value is naming MagicDNS as part of the returned state, which is modest but real context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating scope first and the notable returned field second. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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 zero-param read there is little to explain, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with no output schema, the description could enumerate what 'preferences' includes beyond MagicDNS, and it never disambiguates this tool from the several sibling getters of related DNS state — leaving a real selection gap.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. There is no parameter behavior for the description to explain, and it correctly implies the call is scoped to the caller's tailnet.

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 (Get) and resource (DNS preferences) scoped to 'your tailnet', and even names the key field returned (MagicDNS). It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely named siblings like tailscale_get_dns_configuration, tailscale_get_split_dns, or tailscale_get_search_paths, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of when to call this versus tailscale_get_dns_configuration, tailscale_get_split_dns, or tailscale_get_nameservers. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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