resolve_spf_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral details: recursive resolution, lookup count, tree depth, and detection of circular includes/10-lookup limit. This fully informs the agent.

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: first states the primary action, second enumerates key features (lookups, depth, flags). No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (lookup count, tree depth, flags). The tool's complexity is adequately captured for an agent to understand invocation and results.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond schema by noting that 'format' is auto-detected if omitted, linking parameters to the tool's overall behavior.

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 traces SPF include chains recursively, which is distinct from siblings like check_spf. It specifies the resource (SPF chain) and verb (trace/resolve), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for debugging SPF includes but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like check_spf. However, the context of deep recursive resolution makes the use case clear.

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