get_dns_settings

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it notes that LAN clients resolve via the router, and that the output warns when IPv6 DNS is automatic because that constitutes a second path to the ISP's resolvers. That warning nuance is genuinely useful for interpreting results and is not derivable from the annotations.

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 compact sentences with the content scope front-loaded and the IPv6 caveat second; nothing is padded. The parenthetical in the first sentence is slightly telegraphic, making it marginally harder to parse than a plain verb-first sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — the description tells the agent what config domains are in scope and flags the meaningful IPv6 caveat — is sufficient for a zero-parameter read 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to supplement; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, avoiding noise.

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 enumerates exactly which settings are returned — WAN IPv4 DNS mode and servers in use, plus IPv6 DNS mode — which distinguishes it from the set_dns_settings sibling and from generic reads like read_router_page. It lacks an explicit verb ('Returns...'), reading as a noun-phrase fragment, which slightly weakens immediate intent recognition.

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 only implied: the get_/set_ naming pair makes the read-vs-write split with set_dns_settings obvious, but the description never says when to call this versus alternatives such as get_lan_settings or read_router_page. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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