ct_check_caa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses analysis and flagging behaviors, but omits whether the tool is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or output format. It does specify analyzed tags and flags, which is meaningful, but lacks depth on side effects or response structure.

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, front-loaded sentences. No fluff, every clause contributes. The structure clearly leads with the verb and resource, then details analysis and flags.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the core functionality and expected outcomes (flags), but doesn't explain return format or error handling. Given the simplicity, this is sufficient for a basic understanding, though not fully complete.

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 a clear parameter description. The tool description adds extra semantic value by explaining that the domain and its parents are checked, which clarifies the parameter's scope beyond what the schema states. That's a valuable addition.

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 checks CAA DNS records for a domain and its parents, with specific actions (analyzes issue, issuewild, iodef tags) and outputs (flags missing CAA, unrestricted wildcards, missing iodef). This distinguishes it from other DNS/CT tools and is highly specific.

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 a clear use case: whenever CAA record validation or audit is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is so focused that context is inherent. A minor gap is lack of comparisons to sibling tools like ct_wildcard_audit.

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