Get DNS Records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get all DNS records,' which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose details such as whether the response is paginated, what fields are included, or any permissions required. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

The description is one succinct sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 tool is low-complexity with a single parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core function of retrieving all DNS records, but does not explain return values or response structure. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it is adequately complete for a simple getter, though it could benefit from mentioning what is returned.

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 100%, with the only parameter 'domain' described as 'Domain name' in the schema. The tool description says 'for a domain,' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Get all DNS records for a domain.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'DNS records' are specific, and the scope 'for a domain' matches the required parameter. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dns_update_records and dns_delete_records by focusing on retrieval.

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 usage: when you need to view DNS records. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_validate_records or dns_get_snapshots. There is no guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites, so it provides only basic implied context.

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