list_dhcp_leases

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the lease list is only populated when Pi-hole's DHCP server is enabled, which warns the agent to expect empty results. Beyond that it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or result volume, which the name 'list_' only weakly implies.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately qualified by the condition that matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter signature means no argument documentation is required. The description covers the resource and the key availability caveat; only an explicit note on how leases are removed or when to reach for remove_dhcp_lease is absent.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('Active DHCP leases'), which is enough for an agent to know it lists current leases rather than modifying them. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling remove_dhcp_lease, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'Active' qualifier; there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to an alternative. The parenthetical caveat about DHCP being enabled does give one useful condition under which results appear, but it is a data-population note rather than routing guidance.

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