resolve_dns

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

The description discloses that this is an active probe ('[probe, ACTIVE]') and requires DIAG_ALLOW_ACTIVE_CHECKS, which is important behavioral context. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the active nature and permission requirement. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens if the check is not allowed.

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 sentence that front-loads the key facts: it's an active probe, it resolves from inside the pod, and it requires a permission flag. No wasted words, though the '[probe, ACTIVE]' prefix is a bit cryptic.

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 simple DNS resolution tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, where it runs, and the permission requirement. It doesn't explain the return format or how the name parameter interacts with search domains, but those are minor gaps for a probe 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents pod, service, and namespace. The description adds context for 'name' (the thing to resolve) and clarifies 'service' means 'workload name as you would say it'. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the schema is fairly clear. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a name from inside the pod'), and clarifies it uses the pod's resolv.conf, search domains, and ndots. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_connectivity or get_endpoints, but the 'from inside the pod' scoping is distinctive enough.

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 when to use it (when you need DNS resolution from the pod's perspective) and mentions the DIAG_ALLOW_ACTIVE_CHECKS requirement, which is a usage gate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like check_connectivity for general connectivity checks.

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