dns_resolve

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 discloses a key behavioral trait: the ability to resolve via the server itself or an external server. However, it does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or output format. Since the tool is a diagnostic test, the lack of explicit non-destructive language is a minor gap.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the main verb and resource, and quickly covers the key variance (server selection). Every word contributes to understanding.

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 (4 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the core functionality and the main variant (server). It does not explain return values, but the schema's param descriptions and the obvious nature of DNS resolution make this acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including enums for type and protocol. The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: testing DNS resolution for a domain name. It specifies the verb 'resolve' and the resource 'domain name', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the ability to use either the Technitium server or an external server.

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 diagnostic use case: 'Test DNS resolution' suggests when an agent needs to verify DNS resolution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the context is clear enough to differentiate from management tasks like list or update operations.

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