check_nsec_walkability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining it analyzes NSEC3PARAM and detects specific issues (plain NSEC, weak parameters, opt-out flags). This provides behavioral insight beyond 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence carries essential 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and detection capabilities. Could be improved by clarifying what 'walkability risk' means, but overall adequate.

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% with well-described parameters (domain, format, force_refresh). The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool assesses zone walkability risk by analyzing NSEC3PARAM configuration, specifying detection of plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, and opt-out flags. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dnssec or check_dnskey_strength.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_dnssec or check_dnskey_strength. The purpose implies usage for NSEC walkability specifics, but lacks clear context or exclusions.

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