technitium_resolve

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: "It only reads" (safe, non-mutating) and "A cached answer can be returned" (stale results possible). It omits permissions/auth requirements and error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the parameter notes are written as a fragmented list with hard line breaks that read more like field annotations than a coherent description. Some phrasing is redundant ("asks that Technitium itself").

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 needn't be described. For a 4-parameter tool it covers two parameters well, leaves 'type' unexplained, and gives no guidance on query syntax or expected latency/caching implications beyond one line.

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 must compensate. It explains dns_server (default this-server vs. alternate address) and server (single vs. "all") in reasonable depth, but the 'type' parameter (record type, default A) is never mentioned or explained anywhere.

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?

"Look up a name to test DNS" states a specific verb and resource, and the example domain makes the intent concrete. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like technitium_call, which could also issue DNS 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?

It gives scenario guidance for the server parameter ("all runs it on every server, which is a good way to compare answers"), which is genuinely useful context. But it never says when to prefer this tool over a sibling, nor any when-not condition.

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