resolve_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the mechanism ('local system resolver') and the latency measurement, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure behavior, timeouts, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and adds the latency detail without waste. Every word earns its place.

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, has only one required parameter, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary. The description covers the core action and metric, though it could better address when to prefer this over run_ping.

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 0%, so the description needed to clarify what 'hostname' should look like (e.g., FQDN, IP address, port inclusion). It does not add any semantics beyond the schema's field title, merely echoing the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolves'), a specific resource ('a hostname'), and the additional behavior of measuring resolution latency. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_ping or telemetry queries.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use resolve_dns versus alternatives such as run_ping, even though the distinction between DNS resolution and network reachability is important. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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