privacy_doq_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that Node.js QUIC is experimental, that the tool performs a connectivity probe via DNS query to port 853/UDP, and checks for any response. It also states the output is availability status. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just the tool name.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by methodology and expected output. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 probe tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully self-contained. It explains the experimental nature, the exact network operation, and what result to expect (availability status). No critical information is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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% for the single 'server' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter description; it only mentions 'server' in the context of the test target, but the schema already provides examples and format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('DNS-over-QUIC support on a server'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like privacy_doh_test and privacy_dot_test. The title is null, but the description fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 on when to use the tool (to test DoQ support) and explains its probe methodology, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tool names imply the distinction, yet no direct comparison is made.

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