dns_recursive_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the core behavior (sending an RD=1 query to a nameserver) and the security risk it identifies. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., generating traffic to the target, triggering alerts) or what the response format looks like, leaving some gaps.

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: the first explains the action, the second provides rationale. Both sentences are informative and concise, with no wasted words or redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and method. It does not describe the return value format, but the intent is clear and the low complexity makes this sufficient. A higher score would require explicit output expectations.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'nameserver', including its purpose and an example. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tests whether a DNS nameserver is an open recursive resolver, using a recursive query (RD=1) for an external domain. This is a specific verb-resource-methodology combination that fully conveys the tool's purpose and its security relevance.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: during security assessments of DNS nameservers to identify open recursion. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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