privacy_dot_test

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 discloses the tool's key behaviors: testing connectivity, reporting TLS details, cert validity, and DNS response. This indicates a network-read operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, which are minor gaps for a network-testing tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's scope, the second lists outputs and validation purpose. No wasted words.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return contents (TLS version, cipher suite, certificate validity, DNS response) and the validation goal. It could be more complete by describing output format or success/failure indicators, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('server', 'port') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema clarity. 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 uses a specific verb 'Test' and clearly identifies the resource: 'DNS-over-TLS (DoT) endpoint'. It reports concrete outputs (TLS version, cipher suite, certificate validity, DNS response), distinguishing it from sibling tools like privacy_doh_test and privacy_doq_test by explicitly naming DoT.

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 states when to use it ('Validates that encrypted DNS transport is properly configured'), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., DoH/DoQ tools), but the DoT-specific language implies the appropriate use case. Slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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