dnssec_check_dnskey

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: distinguishing KSK vs ZSK, reporting algorithm and protocol, and flagging weak vs strong algorithms. This goes beyond a simple 'list' and gives useful behavioral insight, though it omits response format or potential failure modes.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: listing, distinguishing key types, and reporting algorithm strength. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It fully communicates the tool's function and output characteristics, covering all essential aspects without needing external context.

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 covers the only parameter 'domain' with a clear description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 lists DNSKEY records for a domain, with a specific verb ('List') and resource. It further distinguishes KSK vs ZSK and reports algorithm/protocol, which clearly separates it from sibling DNSSEC tools like dnssec_check_ds or dnssec_check_rrsig.

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 (to inspect DNSKEY records and assess key algorithms), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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