get_dhcp_server_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a small amount of context by listing example content (pool ranges, lease times), but it does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as return format, pagination limits, or potential side effects. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no redundant or filler content, and every word adds value by specifying what the tool retrieves.

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 simple read-only nature, the presence of readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning that it returns all interfaces when none is specified, but that is already documented in the interface parameter schema. Overall, no significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (page, interface, page_size), so the schema already provides clear semantics. The description itself does not add additional parameter meaning, merely listing content types rather than parameter details. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DHCP server configuration'), and provides concrete examples of what it includes (pool ranges, lease times). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_dhcp_server_config and related DHCP tools like search_dhcp_leases.

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 implies this tool is for reading the DHCP server config, which is contextually clear given the sibling update_dhcp_server_config. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention filtering or pagination behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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