dns_get_settings

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose any authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format details. The listed setting categories describe output scope rather than behavioral traits, adding limited transparency beyond the explicit read-only intent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Get the current DNS server settings') and then efficiently lists the relevant categories without unnecessary filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it concise and effectively organized.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate for missing structured information. It adequately covers the high-level content areas (forwarders, blocking, protocols, logging, cache, proxy), which is reasonable for a simple getter. However, it does not detail the exact structure or format of the response, leaving some ambiguity for the agent regarding the output shape.

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, so parameter explanation is unnecessary; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by outlining the categories of settings returned, which helps the agent anticipate the output structure, even though no parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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 function with the verb 'Get' and the resource 'DNS server settings', and enumerates specific setting categories (forwarders, blocking, protocols, logging, cache, proxy). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like dns_set_settings (the setter) and dns_get_stats (metrics).

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 implies a read operation for viewing current configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance is provided on when to prefer dns_get_settings over related tools, so usage is only implied.

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