get_dhcp_relay_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent and adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain response format, permissions, or any special behavior beyond the act of fetching settings.

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 of six words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only getter, this description is fully sufficient. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The simplicity of the tool requires no additional context.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema documents this fully. The description correctly avoids parameter details because none exist; baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource 'DHCP relay settings.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dhcp_server_config and update_dhcp_relay_settings.

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 implied by the getter pattern and tool name, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusions. For a simple read-only getter, this is minimally acceptable, yet it does not differentiate from other 'get_*' settings tools.

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