show_dns

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as read-only, which is a useful behavioral trait given that no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any potential side effects, though for a simple show command this may be acceptable. The read-only label is the primary behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information (resource and scope). It is appropriately sized for a parameterless read-only tool, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple no-parameter read-only query, the description states the essential information. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent does not know what the result looks like. While a show command likely returns a straightforward structure, the description could clarify the format or mention that it returns a list of DNS settings. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is trivially fully covered.

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 states a clear resource (DNS server settings) with a specific scope (per LAN) and a read-only qualifier. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like wan_dns and dhcp_dns1, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb is implicit but inferable from the show prefix.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many DNS-related siblings (wan_dns, dhcp_dns1, ip_dnsforward), the agent receives no routing cues and must infer scope from the name alone.

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