privacy_leak_test

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the method (querying third-party services) and the comparison logic, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or that it sends resolver IPs to external services, which is a notable privacy consideration.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, so the description covers the core functionality. However, without an output schema or annotations, it fails to explicitly describe the return format or what the output looks like (e.g., a list of resolvers, a boolean leak result). The hint about detecting leaks is present but not enough for a complete agent assessment.

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 100% coverage for 'expected_resolver', including a clear description, example, and behavior when omitted. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing 'expected resolver' in the comparison context, so baseline 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: determining which DNS resolver(s) the system is using by querying services that reveal resolver IPs, then comparing against an expected resolver. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like privacy_doh_test or privacy_dot_test.

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 usage for detecting DNS leaks or misconfigurations but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large number of privacy-related siblings, it would benefit from explicit guidance such as 'use this to verify VPN DNS routing' or 'for DoH-specific leaks, use privacy_doh_test'.

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