opnsense_get_dns_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns the exact JSON schema, mentions that sections are omitted if their endpoint is unavailable, and explains the kind of state covered. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose latency or auth specifics.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, troubleshooting context, args, returns, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Though somewhat verbose, each sentence earns its place, providing useful operational context and selection 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers the purpose, usage context, input parameter, return schema (including the JSON structure and omitted sections), and when not to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 description mentions the single parameter (response_format) and its allowed values ('markdown' or 'json'), but adds little beyond what the input schema already provides. The schema's nested description offers richer guidance about format trade-offs, so the description's contribution is minimal. Still, it at least identifies the parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the state of the Unbound DNS resolver: whether it is running, whether DNS blocklisting is active, and its cache and query counters.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating not to use it for individual lookups, pointing to opnsense_search_dns_queries.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Clients reporting "the internet is down" when routing is fine is almost always DNS. Check here before looking at firewall rules.' Also gives concrete examples: 'Use when: Is DNS working? / Don't use when: You want to see individual lookups (use opnsense_search_dns_queries).'

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