ad_test_dns_resolution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether a default DNS server is used when dns_server is omitted, whether the call times out or fails fast, whether it accepts credentials, or what a failure looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with the category and mode tags front-loaded, so there is zero waste and the purpose is immediately visible. Brevity here is efficiency rather than padding, though it edges toward under-specification.

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?

For a diagnostic tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a non-obvious optional dns_server, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input semantics and behavioral expectations are missing.

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% for all three parameters, yet the description only vaguely implies that 'name' is the hostname to resolve. It says nothing about dns_server (optional, defaulting to null - which server is used?) or correlation_id (what it is for). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Testar resolucao de nomes DNS') and tags it with domain ([DNS & Infrastructure]) and mode ([READ]), which lets an agent distinguish it from mutating DNS tools like ad_create_dns_record or ad_get_dns_zone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings ad_test_kerberos_connectivity and ad_test_ldap_connectivity.

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 '[READ]' tag implies a non-mutating diagnostic, but there is no statement of when to use this versus other connectivity tests or DNS tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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