doh_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects may occur, what the response format is, or any error conditions. For a status tool this is a critical omission.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is not effectively front-loaded because it fails to convey the tool's purpose clearly enough; brevity is achieved but at the cost of clarity.

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?

Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description still needs to convey the tool's function and how it differs from check_health. It does not mention return values, read-only behavior, or the relationship to sibling tools, so an agent lacks critical information to use it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add context about the domain (DoH local bridge via dnsproxy/launchd) which helps an agent understand the subject, even though it does not explain any parameter (as there are none).

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 'Status bridge DoH lokal (dnsproxy via launchd).' is a label-like phrase rather than a clear action. It names a resource (bridge DoH) and context (dnsproxy/launchd) but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'check', and does not distinguish it from the sibling check_health which likely serves a similar status purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. No context is provided about the intended scenario or alternative tools, leaving an agent without any basis to select this tool over check_health.

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