pihole_enable

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

The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects, permissions required). With no annotations provided, the agent receives no information about what happens upon invocation or potential state changes beyond the generic verb 'enable'.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional context.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances that an agent might need for correct invocation.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail because there are none, which is acceptable but not informative. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Enable') and the resource ('Pi-hole DNS blocking'), directly conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like pihole_disable (opposite) and pihole_status (status check).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling tools implies complementary usage with pihole_disable, but the description lacks direct instructions on when to enable versus alternatives.

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