pihole_get_blacklist

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 states the tool gets domains but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or the format of the returned data (e.g., list, JSON). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data format or operational constraints. For a simple read tool, this is minimally viable, but additional context on output or usage would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, as none are needed. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, where minimal description is sufficient.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get all domains') and the resource ('on the Pi-hole blacklist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'pihole_get_whitelist' by specifying the blacklist, and from 'pihole_get_top_blocked' by indicating it retrieves all domains rather than just top ones.

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 implies usage when needing to retrieve the complete blacklist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for checking blacklist contents versus 'pihole_get_top_blocked' for analytics, or mention prerequisites like Pi-hole being enabled. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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