opn_list_dns_overrides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dict with 'rows' and 'rowCount', indicating the action is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or describe any side effects, which is acceptable for a listing tool but could be more transparent.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the purpose, provide usage context, and mention the return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage context. However, it lacks parameter semantics, which are important for effective use. This gap reduces completeness, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 two parameters (search, limit) with default values, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what these parameters do (e.g., search filters by hostname, limit controls page size). Since it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, the score is low.

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 lists Unbound DNS host overrides (local DNS records). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DNS host overrides'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opn_list_dns_forwards, but the name and context make the distinction 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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to see which hostnames are overridden to specific IP addresses', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the guidance is direct and adequate.

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