get_ddns_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals the safe read-only nature, and the description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication requirements or response details. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides no additional transparency beyond what the annotation already conveys.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and target. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or 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 simple getter with no parameters and an output schema available, the description fully covers what the tool returns. It does not need to explain return values, and no further context is necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meanings to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no schema-coverage gap to compensate for.

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 fetches the dynamic DNS (DDNS) configuration, using a specific verb (获取/get) plus resource (动态域名配置). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_ddns, delete_ddns, and get_ddns_log, which have different actions or targets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to others, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The name itself implies its purpose, but the description offers no explicit or implicit usage context beyond that.

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