Diagnose CoreDNS

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

The description characterizes the tool as a checker ('Check', 'Flags') but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects. While it adds value beyond the empty annotations, it could be more explicit about permissions or potential impact.

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 core purpose, and includes specific details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description covers key aspects of CoreDNS health but could benefit from mentioning expected output format or how flags are surfaced. Still, it is sufficient for a simple health check tool.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the exact aspects checked, providing context that the schema alone cannot convey. Baseline 4 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 checks CoreDNS deployment health, listing specific aspects like replica readiness, Corefile configuration, kube-dns Service ClusterIP, and endpoint count. This distinguishes it from siblings like dns_lookup or diagnose_pod.

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 use for CoreDNS health diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_lookup or diagnose_pod. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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