get_dynamic_dns

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

Warns that returned data includes plaintext x_password credential fields, which is a critical behavioral disclosure not inferable from the schema. With no annotations, this adds meaningful transparency, though it doesn't discuss other potential behaviors (e.g., errors, rate limits).

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?

Concise and well-structured: opens with the core function, then parameter explanations, then the credential warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple get-by-id operation, the description covers the purpose, all parameter semantics, and the sensitive return behavior. No output schema exists, but the mention of returned verbatim fields gives sufficient context. Missing details like exact response structure are acceptable for this scope.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: host accepts console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId; site accepts name/ID; ddns_id is required and sourced from list_dynamic_dns. No parameter meaning is left obscure.

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 ('Get') and resource ('single Dynamic DNS configuration by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from list_dynamic_dns and update_dynamic_dns. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explains how to obtain the required ddns_id via list_dynamic_dns and defines host/site formats. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the guidance for obtaining the ID and parameter formats covers usage adequately.

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