Get DNS proxy status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond that: a missing proxy-status block is surfaced as an error rather than an empty list, which changes how an agent must handle the response. It also declares the parsing shape (domain/address) of static records.

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?

Three dense clauses, front-loaded with the resource name. Every sentence carries distinct content: resolvers, static records, config tree, and the error-vs-empty behavior. Slightly clause-heavy but no waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it does: upstream resolvers with DoT SNI, parsed A/AAAA records, and the ip host tree, plus the error semantics. Missing only pagination/size limits, which are unlikely for a single-status read. Adequate for a no-parameter status 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?

Zero parameters, so the schema cannot carry semantic load; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters and instead spends its words on the return shape, which is where the semantics actually live.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'DNS proxy status', then enumerates the exact sub-resources returned (upstream resolvers with DoT SNI, static A/AAAA records, ip host config tree). It distinguishes itself from siblings by content, but never references set_dns_host/remove_dns_host as the counterpart writers beyond mentioning them as consumers of the config tree it reads.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side of the set_dns_host/remove_dns_host pair, and the mention of the 'ip host config tree' that those tools write to hints at the workflow. But there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion of alternatives (e.g., get_config or get_config_state could overlap).

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