list_dhcp_servers

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, simply stating it lists configuration. It adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns global or per-interface settings), but the annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, so this is adequate for a trivial list operation.

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, to-the-point sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information and appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it could clarify the exact scope of 'DHCP servers' (e.g., whether it covers multiple server instances or just the main config) and mention that it reads the current configuration. Despite this minor ambiguity, the minimal complexity makes it adequate.

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, and schema coverage is 100% by default. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter context is needed or provided.

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 '列出 DHCP 服务端配置' clearly states the tool lists DHCP server configuration, using a specific verb (list) and resource (DHCP server configuration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dhcp_leases and list_dhcp_static_bindings, which target different aspects of DHCP.

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. It does not mention related tools or clarify the scope of 'DHCP servers' compared to leases or static bindings, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name alone for differentiation.

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