get_dns_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the word 'current', which implies reading live state. No additional details about what the configuration includes or any device-specific behavior are provided, so the description does not significantly extend beyond the 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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, and it is front-loaded with the action and object.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description is too vague about what 'DNS configuration' covers and does not clarify the role of the optional 'device' parameter, leaving the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the parameter 'device' has no description. The tool description also does not mention 'device' at all, leaving its meaning and optionality completely unexplained. This is a significant gap since the description should compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 action ('Gets') and the resource ('current DNS configuration'), which is specific enough to convey the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_dns_static or get_dns_cache, but 'configuration' suggests a broader scope, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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 prerequisites, fallback options, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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