threat_sinkhole_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (DNS resolution and IP lookup) but omits safety aspects such as whether it is a read-only operation, potential network side effects, or limitations (e.g., unresolved domains). This is a minimal transparency gap.

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 action, and every word contributes. It efficiently lists known operators without unnecessary fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does state what is returned (whether sinkholed and which operator). However, it lacks details on the exact return format, behavior for unresolved domains, or error cases. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not fully 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 already documents the 'domain' parameter with a clear description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter nuances beyond stating the domain is what gets checked, 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 clearly states the tool's function: it resolves a domain and checks its IP against known sinkhole operators, then returns sinkhole status and operator. This specific verb+resource combination (resolve/check domain) distinguishes it from sibling threat detection tools like threat_c2_detect or threat_malicious_feed.

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 when a sinkhole check is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear but not directly compared to other threat-related tools.

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