list_dns_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or any edge cases. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 action and followed by concise parameter explanations. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence adds value. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers all parameters and the core behavior. The only gap is lack of mention of pagination or result limits, but for a simple list tool this is not a critical omission. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each optional filter (type, name, content) with examples and clarifies that 'name' is an exact match. zone_id is not explained but is self-evident from context. The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('DNS records'), and a scope ('in a zone'). It also lists optional filters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_dns_record (single record) and create/update/delete mutations. The purpose is unambiguous and well-separated from related 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 implies usage for listing multiple records with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_dns_record or list_zones, nor does it mention any exclusions (e.g., use get_dns_record for a single record). Usage context is clear but not explicitly routed.

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