Get DNS search paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds the tailnet scoping context, with no mention of return format, caching, or freshness; against this annotation coverage a 3 is appropriate.

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; the resource and scope appear immediately. Nothing is wasted and nothing relevant is buried.

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-parameter read-only getter with no output schema and annotations that already carry the safety semantics, the description is nearly sufficient. It stops short of describing what a search path entry looks like or how results are ordered, but for this tool's complexity that omission is minor.

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 rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 and resource ('Get the DNS search paths') and scopes it to 'your tailnet', which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent DNS tools such as tailscale_get_split_dns, tailscale_get_dns_preferences, or its mutation counterpart tailscale_set_search_paths.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other DNS getters in the sibling list, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. 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.