opn_configure_mdns_repeater

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions relaying mDNS packets (224.0.0.251:5353) between selected interfaces and enabling specific protocols, but does not cover potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing config, requires restart, or is reversible). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, efficiently front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable context (cross-VLAN, specific devices). No wasted words. Concise and well-structured.

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 only two simple parameters, the description provides sufficient context for use. It explains the use case (cross-VLAN mDNS) and typical supported devices. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely covers return values. Completeness is good for a configuration 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and both parameters ('enabled' and 'interfaces') are clearly described. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it restates that the repeater relays between interfaces. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Enable and configure the mDNS Repeater to relay multicast DNS between interfaces.' It uses specific verbs ('configure') and resources ('mDNS Repeater'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'opn_mdns_repeater_status' which only retrieves status.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Use this to set up cross-VLAN mDNS discovery.' This is clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for related tasks. However, given the sibling set includes a status-only tool, the recommendation is sufficient.

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