dns_nsec_walk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It honestly uses 'Attempt' and explicitly discloses that NSEC3 will be detected and reported, which sets expectations about failure modes. It does not mention read-only behavior or potential rate-limiting, but the DNS query nature is implied and the key limitations are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence efficiently adds the mechanism and NSEC3 caveat. No redundant text or filler.

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 moderately simple tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and a key limitation (NSEC3). It could be more complete by explicitly describing the return format or exactly how NSEC3 is 'reported,' but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool.

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 both 'domain' and 'limit' already having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so it meets the baseline 3 without exceeding it.

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 states a specific action ('Attempt DNSSEC NSEC zone walking to enumerate domain names in a signed zone') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dns_subdomain_enum or dns_zone_transfer by focusing on the NSEC record mechanism. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 that the tool is for DNSSEC-signed zones using NSEC, and notes that NSEC3 mitigates the technique and is 'detected and reported,' which gives context on limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or exclude non-NSEC zones, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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