check_root_server_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds detail on what evidence is checked but does not disclose additional behaviors like data freshness or performance implications. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence of 18 words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every part of the sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description sufficiently clarifies the tool's scope (multiple checks against official data). It covers the key aspects an agent needs to know. Minor improvement could be mentioning the output format, but output schema handles that.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'format' parameter with its enum values and auto-detection. The tool description adds no further insight into parameter usage, thus baseline score 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 'Check' and clearly states the resource 'DNS root server set' against defined references. It distinguishes itself from sibling DNS tools by specifying 'official root hints, root glue, delegation, serial, and DNSKEY cross-root evidence', making its scope unique.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative DNS checking siblings like check_ns or check_dnssec. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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