dos_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'read-only', which conveys that the operation has no side effects. However, it does not disclose the output format, whether it works during an active attack, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic read-only guarantee.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(read-only)' reinforces the behavioral scope without adding bulk, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only view tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The only gap is the lack of distinction from the numerous DoS and status-view siblings, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 an empty schema, so there is nothing to describe. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no incorrect or conflicting parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('View') and a clear resource ('DoS defense configuration'), and explicitly adds '(read-only)' to signal it is non-mutating. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like dos_blacklist_show or dos_whitelist_show, which also present DoS-related 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dos_blacklist_show, dos_whitelist_show, or show_status. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer the use case solely from the name and verb.

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