infra_tcp_fallback

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific checks performed (TC flag, TCP connectivity) and the rationale (RFC 7766), which is meaningful behavior beyond a generic 'test' label. However, it does not mention side effects such as sending UDP/TCP network traffic, timeouts, or whether the operation is safe/non-destructive. Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.

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, each earning its place: the first states the core test, and the second explains the standard that motivates it. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 test with no output schema, the description adequately explains the procedure (UDP TC flag check and TCP connectivity) and the context (RFC 7766 requirement). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it could be more complete by stating the interpretation of results (e.g., pass/fail semantics). Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly 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 input schema covers the single parameter 'nameserver' with a clear description (IP address or hostname). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. The tool description reinforces the role of the nameserver but adds no extra semantic nuance 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 opens with the specific verb 'Test' and clearly identifies the resource (DNS nameserver) and what is tested (TCP fallback for large responses). It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the exact mechanism: checking the TC flag on UDP responses and verifying TCP port 53 connectivity. This is both specific and differentiating.

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 this tool: when investigating large DNS responses and potential truncation, referenced by RFC 7766. It implies use for compliance testing but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools that might suit edge cases. The context is strong, but explicit exclusions or alternatives are absent.

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