infra_edns_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details what the tool checks and what issues it flags, offering insight into its testing logic. However, it doesn't describe output format or potential side effects like sending queries, leaving some ambiguity.

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: first states the core purpose, second lists checks and flagged issues. No redundant words, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, testing scope, and issue detection. It lacks detail on results structure or preconditions, but for such a focused tool, it's sufficiently 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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'nameserver' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, 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 identifies the tool as testing EDNS0 compliance of a DNS nameserver, enumerating specific checked aspects (EDNS version, UDP buffer size, DO flag, NSID). It distinguishes from sibling infra_* tools by focusing on EDNS0 compliance.

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 usage for EDNS0 compliance testing with a clear context, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like dns_server_fingerprint or dnssec_validate. It provides no exclusions but the context is clear.

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