dns_health_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns, which strongly implies a read-only, safe operation. However, it does not explicitly mention permissions, error behavior, or side effects (though none are expected for a health check). The listed outputs give substantial transparency beyond a simple 'health check' label.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Quick health check of the DNS server.' It efficiently lists the returned data in a compact list without fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it clearly states the purpose and return contents. It could be slightly more complete by specifying the data format or stating that it is read-only, but these are not critical for a basic health check tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is a 4, and the description adds no unnecessary information.

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 uses a specific verb ('health check') plus a clear resource ('DNS server') and explicitly lists returned data (version, uptime, forwarder config, blocking status, failure rate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_get_stats, which implies detailed statistics, and other DNS management tools.

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 a use case ('quick health check') which is understandable but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as dns_get_stats or dns_get_settings. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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