privacy_ecs_leak

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses that the tool sends a DNS query with an ECS option, checks forwarding to authoritative servers, and notes the potential privacy consequence. It does not hide the network action, though it leaves out details like output format or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, both essential. The first states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism and consequence. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is self-contained for a simple DNS test tool, explaining what, how, and why. However, since there is no output schema, it could briefly mention what the tool returns (e.g., a leak/no-leak verdict), which is implied but not stated.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the /24 subnet and ECS option but does not significantly enhance parameter-level understanding beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., resolver and test_domain descriptions).

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 specific action ('Test EDNS Client Subnet (ECS) leak') and resource ('DNS resolver'), and explains the mechanism (sends query with /24 subnet ECS option). It distinguishes itself from siblings like privacy_leak_test by focusing on ECS specifically.

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 concerned about ECS leaks) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like privacy_resolver_audit or privacy_leak_test are not referenced, so no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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