get_ipv6_wan_config

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, side effects, or dependencies, but it does not contradict the annotation either. Given the low bar set by the annotation, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter getter with an existing output schema, the description sufficiently identifies the tool's purpose. There are no additional parameters to clarify, and the return structure is presumably covered by the output schema, making the description complete for its 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 does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema is fully documented with no properties, and the baseline for zero params is 4.

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 IPv6 外网设置' clearly states the tool retrieves IPv6 WAN settings, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ipv6_lan_config by specifying '外网' (WAN). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it is not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ipv6_config or get_ipv6_lan_config. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering zero usage direction.

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