get_upnp_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The only added value is the parenthetical explaining what UPnP is (devices opening ports themselves), which is useful domain context but not a behavioral trait; nothing about scope, failure modes, or freshness of the reported state is given.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, but it is a bare subordinate clause with no subject or verb rather than a complete statement of what the tool does. Brevity here reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.

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 parameterless read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the essentials are nearly covered. What is missing is an explicit statement that this reads the current state and a pointer to set_upnp for making changes.

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 clarify; baseline 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% and the input is empty by design.

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 fragment "Whether UPnP ... is enabled" identifies the resource (UPnP enabled state) but omits an explicit verb, so the agent must infer 'get' from the tool name. It does implicitly distinguish read from the sibling set_upnp, but only through the name, not the description text.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling set_upnp, and no mention that a matching setter exists for changing the value. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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