router_get_dmz

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that force bypasses a Network Guard safety check, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain the risk or implications of that bypass or state permissions/rate limits.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the only parameter. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool with an output schema, the core purpose and the force parameter are covered. However, without annotations it should say more about the safety-check bypass behavior and usage context to be fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and there is one parameter. The description explains what force does, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean field. It still omits the default value and when force is appropriate, but it substantially compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieves DMZ host forwarding status and destination IP. It is clearly a read operation and is distinguishable from router_set_dmz by the verb, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as router_get_port_forwarding or router_get_upnp.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or the conditions under which the force parameter should be set.

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