get_dhcp_log

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already communicates the safe read-only nature. The description simply says 'get' which aligns with that, but adds no extra behavioral context such as whether logs are paginated, time-bounded, or limited to certain DHCP events. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 phrase with no wasted words. It's precisely sized for a no-parameter getter tool, delivering maximum clarity with minimal characters.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already documented. The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple getter with no parameters, though it could arguably clarify whether 'DHCP log' refers to server logs or client lease logs. Overall, the contextual need is low and the description meets it.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. With no parameters, the description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 per the guidelines.

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 '获取 DHCP 日志' (Get DHCP logs) clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling log tools like get_arp_log and get_auth_log. It's a specific verb+resource pair that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention what DHCP logs contain, whether to use it for troubleshooting, or how it relates to sibling DHCP tools like list_dhcp_leases. It's purely a bare statement with no contextual direction.

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