get_dhcp_leases

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavior — that unsupported hardware yields supported=false — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, refresh/freshness of lease data, or the shape of a successful result.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the purpose comes first and the fallback behavior second. Everything written earns its place.

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 no-arg read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the call returns at a high level and flags the unsupported path, which is the essential minimum. It stops short of describing the lease fields an agent would need to interpret, so it is adequate rather than 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 100% schema coverage is trivially satisfied. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 resource and retrieval intent ("DHCPリース一覧" = DHCP lease list), which is distinguishable from the sibling list_reservations (reservations vs. leases) and the subnet/overview tools. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_reservations for the related-but-distinct concept. The only conditional hint is the unsupported case, not a usage rule.

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