get_dns_proxy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[READ-ONLY]' and the exact config path. It does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or output format, but for a simple read operation with these annotations, the description adds adequate context.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the operation type, the resource, and the relevant config path without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and a fully documented schema, the description plus annotations are sufficient to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema and the broad term 'configuration' leave some ambiguity about the exact return fields, so it is not quite a perfect 5.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, including the conditional requirement when multiple firewalls exist. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('DNS proxy configuration'), and it adds the config path. No sibling tool targets DNS proxy specifically, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_config. The only usage-related hint appears in the schema's parameter description about the firewall parameter, which addresses parameter requirements, not tool selection.

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