diagnose_dhcp_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by listing the types of checks performed (config, lease pool, conflicts, specific lookup), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope beyond the safety annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value—no filler, repetition, or redundant schema information.

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 presence of a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers the diagnostic scope and optional parameters adequately. For a read-only diagnostic tool, this is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke 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 input schema already fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explicitly tying ip_address and mac_address to the 'looks up a specific MAC or IP address' behavior, reinforcing the optional lookup semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Analyze') and resource ('DHCP service health on an interface'), and enumerates specific checks (server config, lease pool utilization, IP conflicts, optional MAC/IP lookup). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dhcp_leases or get_dhcp_server_config, which are narrower.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when analyzing overall DHCP health and optionally looking up a specific lease. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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