llm_dns_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the return type but does not mention aspects like read-only nature, required permissions, side effects, or how it handles large captures.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is overly terse, omitting critical information about parameters and usage that should be included.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to cover parameter usage, behavioral traits, or clear use context beyond 'LLM triage.' It is incomplete for a tool with required parameters.

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 description does not mention any parameters despite two existing parameters (capture_path required, limit optional). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning, and a user would not know a capture file path is needed.

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 it returns a DNS summary including queries, answers, and response codes, and explicitly targets LLM triage. It distinguishes from many sibling tools that focus on other protocols (HTTP, TLS) or generic capture summaries.

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 says 'for LLM triage,' implying use in triage scenarios, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like llm_http_summary or llm_tls_summary. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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