diagnose_dns_resolution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool runs a connectivity check to verify upstream reachability, which is a behavioral trait beyond static reads and provides useful context.

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?

Two short sentences convey the purpose and scope directly, front-loading the key phrase 'Check DNS resolver health' and listing components without redundancy or filler.

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 description covers all the tool's action space: settings, override counts, system DNS servers, and connectivity check. Given the zero-parameter input and the existence of an output schema, it is complete for a diagnostic 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 and an empty schema, so the description carries no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for 0-parameter tools applies, and the description appropriately refrains from adding irrelevant parameter detail.

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 DNS resolver health' and enumerates specific data retrieved (settings, override counts, system DNS servers, connectivity check). This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_dns_resolver_settings, which only retrieves settings.

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 its use for overall DNS resolver health assessment, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_dns_resolver_settings or run_ping_diagnostic. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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