Get Dmz Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what the DMZ config contains, whether it requires elevated privileges, or any caveat. With the lower bar set by annotations, a small amount of added context would have earned more.

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?

A single short phrase with zero padding, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the context noted in other dimensions.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It is minimally viable for a simple getter, but it omits any scoping or sibling-routing detail that a large toolset like this one would benefit from.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and no enum or format detail is applicable.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('获取 DMZ 主机配置' / Get DMZ host configuration), which is more informative than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling setter set_dmz or from other 'get_*_config' tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative, and no prerequisite. An agent can infer this is the read counterpart to set_dmz, but the description never says so.

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