check_nsec_walkability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by revealing exactly what configurations will be flagged (plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 params, opt-out flags), going beyond generic labels.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second enumerates the detected conditions, making the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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 output schema, annotations, and full parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete for this moderately complex check. It could improve by explicitly contrasting with related DNS security checks (e.g., check_dnssec, check_dnssec_chain), but the current content is enough for an agent to evaluate usefulness.

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 each parameter documented (domain, format, force_refresh). The description adds no additional parameter nuance, but it does not need to because the schema already provides clear meaning for all three fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Assess zone walkability risk by analyzing NSEC3PARAM configuration." It then names discrete detection targets—plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, and opt-out flags—which differentiates it from broader DNS-related 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?

The description gives clear functional context: this tool is for NSEC/NSEC3 walkability and DNSSEC configuration detail. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the specificity of the risk target implies when the tool should be used versus general DNS checkers.

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