infomaniak_audit_dns_zones

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

Annotations already disclose read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it scans all domains by default, each domain requires 2 sequential API calls, and the default max_domains keeps execution under ~30s. This goes beyond the annotations to set performance expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundant details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk audit, optional params, output schema present), the description covers purpose, use case, performance implications, and scoping options. It omits explicit alternative tool comparisons, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—only reinforcing the bulk-read scope. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Bulk-read') and resource ('every domain owned by an account'), with the exact output (number of DNS records and DNSSEC status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_domains and dns_list_records by focusing on bulk auditing across all zones rather than per-zone operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('spot-checking large fleets') and how to scope it (via filter_contains for targeted audits). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a read-only audit tool.

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