check_dnskey_strength

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

The description accurately reflects the tool's read-only, idempotent nature by using terms like 'audit' and 'reports.' It adds context about being independent of chain validation, but does not elaborate on potential side effects or limitations beyond that.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, output, independence, and usage. It avoids redundancy and each sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and key behavior, and mentions its position in the scan_domain audit. It does not describe output format or error conditions, but these are not critical for a simple read-only tool with clear schema descriptions.

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 has full coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (domain, format, force_refresh). The tool description adds no additional information about these parameters, so it contributes nothing beyond the schema itself.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: auditing the cryptographic strength of DNSKEY signing algorithms, reporting the algorithm used, and flagging deprecated ones. It also explicitly distinguishes this from DNSSEC chain validation, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Use when asked what algorithm is used for DNSKEY signing keys, or if deprecated DNSKEY algorithms are in use.' It also notes the tool is part of a broader audit, giving context on when it might be invoked.

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