infra_dns_cookie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism: 'Sends a query with a client cookie and checks if the server returns a server cookie.' This gives a clear picture of the tool's behavior, though it does not mention any potential side effects or failure modes beyond server non-response.

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 compact with three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, background, and mechanism. No redundant or filler 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what the tool tests, why it matters, and how the test is performed. It stops short of specifying the exact output format or result types, but for a boolean-like test this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% with a detailed schema description for 'nameserver' (IP address or hostname). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so the schema already carries full weight. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not compensate beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Test DNS Cookie support (RFC 7873) on a nameserver.' It names the specific resource (nameserver) and the specific behavior (RFC 7873 cookie support), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like infra_edns_compliance or dns_server_fingerprint.

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 when to use this tool (when testing DNS cookie support) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons with related tools, so usage context is only implied.

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