resolve_all

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 the batch behavior ('resolve all... in one call') and lists record types, but does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, error handling, or output format. It adds some behavioral context but lacks completeness for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (action, resource, scope) with zero waste. Every word contributes to clarity 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and scope well, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., performance, errors) and output, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for informed use.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'domain' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra constraints or examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('resolve all common DNS record types') and the resource ('for a domain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'dns_lookup' (likely more general) and 'reverse_dns' (different direction). It explicitly lists the record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME) to specify scope.

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 context ('in one call') for batch resolution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dns_lookup' or 'check_nameservers'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance.

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