get_upnp_settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is present and the description simply says 'get', which is consistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what settings are returned or any dependencies.

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, which is concise, but it merely restates the tool name. It is under-specified and does not earn its place by adding useful information.

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 presence of a closely related sibling (get_upnp_status), this description is insufficient to disambiguate. There is no mention of what constitutes 'settings' versus 'status', and the output schema is not referenced. The tool description should provide more context, but it provides almost none.

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 schema covers everything. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools 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 is a direct translation of the tool name (get_upnp_settings = 获取 UPnP 设置), which is a tautology. It names a verb and resource but does nothing to distinguish it from the similar sibling get_upnp_status.

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 like get_upnp_status. The absence of any explanatory text leaves the agent to guess from the name alone.

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