infra_rate_limiting

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the test mechanism: 'Sends a burst of identical queries and checks for REFUSED responses or dropped packets, indicating active rate limiting.' This goes beyond a simple restatement and discloses how the test is performed and what indicators are used. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network traffic generation or false positive possibilities, which is a minor gap.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first states the purpose, the second explains the method and expected indicators. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information or rambling.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: the purpose, the method, and what indicates a positive result. It does not explain the exact return format, but the outcome is clearly implied ('indicating active rate limiting'). This is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters: 'nameserver' (IP or hostname) and 'queries' (default 20). The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema—it only mentions the burst behavior, which is already implied by the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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's function: 'Test if a DNS nameserver has Response Rate Limiting (RRL) enabled.' This uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('DNS nameserver') with a precise subject (RRL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like infra_open_resolver or infra_amplification.

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 the tool—when you want to check for RRL on a nameserver—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. There is no mention of other detection methods or exclusions, so the usage context is implied rather than fully specified.

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