diagnose_dns

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the flush_cache behavior, which mutates DNS cache state, and instructs to ASK the user before flushing. It also notes when 'view' is required, adding contextual constraints not in annotations.

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 well-organized with sections for summary, usage, args, returns, and examples. Every sentence provides necessary information, and examples clarify usage without redundancy.

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 (3 params, one required) and presence of output schema, the description still summarizes the return report. It covers alternatives, parameters, side effects, and examples, making it fully self-contained for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents each parameter: domain with examples, view with requirement context, and flush_cache with usage and caution. This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 states a specific action: diagnose DNS resolution problems, and specifies the scope (zone, records, security policies). It distinguishes from sibling tools by pointing to diagnose_ip_conflict for IP-level issues and check_infrastructure_health for infrastructure-wide health.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'USE THIS when a domain isn't resolving or has DNS issues.' It names alternatives for IP-level and infrastructure-wide issues, giving clear context for tool selection.

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