dns_intelligence__enumerate_dns

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses active probing behaviors (lame delegation, anonymous zone transfer/AXFR, open recursion) and the DNSSEC state model (signed/broken/weak), which is useful. But it does not state the safety profile, expected query volume, or whether probes are intrusive or time-consuming.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by a dense but purposeful detection list. Every clause names a distinct record type or misconfiguration, so little is wasted despite the length.

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 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately states what is enumerated but leaves the operator without guidance on cost, intrusiveness, or how it differs from sibling DNS tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of zone transfer, open recursion, and lame delegation loosely maps to nameserverProbe but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (enumerate) and resource (DNS records) plus an explicit inventory of what it inspects: SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS/TLS-RPT, MX, DNSSEC, CAA, nameservers. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like check_email_security (which also covers SPF/DMARC/DKIM) or lookup_dns, so the agent cannot tell which to pick without opening the schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The overlap with check_email_security and lookup_dns makes the absence of routing guidance a real gap.

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