dns.resolvers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this reads local configuration files, which platform sources it consults, or whether any state is touched – only the 'actual OS' angle hints that it is a local read rather than a remote query.

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?

A single short fragment with zero filler, though it lacks a leading verb and is a sentence fragment rather than a structured statement of purpose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description never indicates what comes back – a list of resolver IPs, protocol details (DoH/DoT), or interface associations are all left unknown. For a zero-param diagnostic tool with no structured return contract, that is a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free.

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 phrase identifies the resource (DNS resolvers) and scopes it to those the OS actually uses, which does implicitly distinguish it from name-resolution siblings like dns.lookup or dns.propagation. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that it returns/reads configuration rather than modifying it.

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 on when to reach for this versus dns.lookup, dns.propagation, or lan.gateway, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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