List Dhcp Leases

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the listing reflects currently allocated (dynamic) addresses, which is meaningful context beyond the annotation, but says nothing about pagination, freshness, or whether expired leases appear.

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 front-loaded clause with zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that the scope parenthetical is doing more routing work than it should.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. For a low-complexity list tool this is minimally adequate, but the absence of any usage or v4/v6 context leaves gaps an agent must fill by inference.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single ip_type parameter is documented in the schema ('"v4" 或 "v6"'). The description does not mention the v4/v6 selector at all, so it adds nothing, but baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list DHCP leases) and adds a scope qualifier ('currently allocated IPs') that distinguishes dynamic leases from the static-binding siblings. It never names an alternative tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near siblings (list_dhcp_static_bindings, list_dhcp_servers, get_dhcp_log) that an agent could confuse this with. The parenthetical scope hint is the only routing signal.

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