Get Upnp Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on whether any privileged auth is needed for UPnP readings or how this differs from the status endpoint, so it contributes essentially zero behavioral context.

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 single short phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy – there is too little content to be genuinely concise.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document, but the description still leaves the agent unable to distinguish this from get_upnp_status and says nothing about scope or constraints. For a configuration-reading tool this is thin.

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 the schema and description are aligned by definition and no parameter documentation is required. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

"获取 UPnP 设置" states a verb (get) and resource (UPnP settings), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, it is indistinguishable from the sibling get_upnp_status, and nothing clarifies whether this returns the enable/disable state, allowed ports, or full configuration.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related get_upnp_status sibling. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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