list_dhcp_leases

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ("One line per lease sorted by interface and IP"), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, whether results are live versus cached, or limits on result size.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Parameters/Returns sections are compact. The parameter block duplicates schema text verbatim, which is some wasted space but not disruptive.

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?

There is no output schema, so the Returns note is valuable and adequately compensates. For a read-only three-parameter list tool this covers what an agent needs, though a line on vdom scoping behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the description's parameter block largely restates them. The one addition is an example filter value ("vlan10") for interface, which is helpful but marginal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List active DHCP leases") and enumerates the fields returned (ip, mac, hostname, interface, expiry, reserved flag), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent read tools like list_arp_table or list_dhcp_servers, which also surface IP/MAC mappings.

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?

"Useful to find a PC's MAC address before creating a reservation" gives a concrete trigger and ties it to the create_dhcp_reservation workflow. It offers no exclusions, though — nothing says when to prefer list_arp_table or list_dhcp_servers instead.

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