dnp3_link_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool 'brings the DNP3 master online' and returns a dict with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether this action has lasting side effects or how it interacts with repeated calls, so it adds only moderate context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, args, returns, and an example. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The [READ][risk=low] tag is somewhat redundant with annotations but does not harm overall readability.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it explains the endpoint parameter, lists the return dict keys, and provides an example. The annotations cover safety. While it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'online' or the exact list of possible statuses, it is sufficiently complete for a simple status/health tool.

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 schema has no description for the endpoint parameter (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It explains that endpoint is a 'name from config (protocol dnp3)' and that omitting it uses the default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema type, though it could specify the default value or format.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bring the DNP3 master online and report link/outstation status.' This uses specific verbs ('bring online', 'report') and identifies the resource (DNP3 master, link/outstation). It is distinct from sibling tools like dnp3_integrity_poll, which likely focuses on polling integrity data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains that the endpoint parameter is optional and takes a config endpoint name, but does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the long list of sibling tools, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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