technitium_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden and does disclose two useful traits: 'It only reads' (read-only) and 'a cached answer can be returned' (stale-result caveat). However, it omits permission requirements, failure behavior for non-existent names (NXDOMAIN), and timeout/rate behavior.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose, then the server parameter, then behavioral caveats. The line breaks and sentence fragments are slightly choppy but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 3-parameter resolver with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the 'type' parameter and error semantics uncovered, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well on 'server' (this-server default vs. an explicit DNS address) and gives an example value for 'name', but the 'type' parameter (default A) is never mentioned, leaving record types such as AAAA/MX/CNAME unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a name to test DNS', with a concrete example (ha.mogie.io). It is clearly a resolution/lookup tool, distinguishable in intent from siblings like technitium_flush_cache or technitium_blocking, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies the use case ('to test DNS') and explains the default vs. alternate server choice, but gives no when-not guidance or explicit routing to alternative tools for related tasks (e.g. cache flushing after changing records).

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