get_dmz_config

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent that this is a safe read operation. The description merely repeats the 'get' semantics without adding any additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of what configuration exactly is returned, but the output schema covers that). No contradiction occurs, but the description adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 precisely conveys the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters), the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully adequate. The agent knows it is a read-only getter with no inputs, and the output schema will define the return structure, so no additional contextual documentation is necessary.

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 input schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on any parameter semantics.

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 action ('获取' = get/retrieve) and the specific resource ('DMZ 主机配置' = DMZ host configuration). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_dmz, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly the read counterpart to set_dmz, the description does not mention this relationship or any other usage context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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