Dissect DNS payload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behaviors (hex input, compressed name support, common address handling), but it omits output format, error behavior, and edge-case limits, leaving significant gaps for a parsing tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the core action, input format, and notable features without any filler or redundancy. 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?

DNS parsing is complex, and the description is brief. It covers input and special features (compressed names/common addresses) but lacks information about the return structure or failure modes, and no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 schema has zero description for the only parameter, so the description compensates by clarifying that payloadHex must be a hex string and that it represents a DNS payload. This is essential semantic information absent from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Parse') and clearly identifies the resource ('RFC 1035-style DNS payload') and input format ('from hex'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling dissectors like proto_dissect_http by focusing on DNS and mentioning compressed names and addresses.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a hex-encoded DNS payload needs parsing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow scope and unique sibling context make the intended usage obvious enough.

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