dns_enumerate

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that no external process is spawned and that it uses dnspython as a pure-Python client. It also describes the return format: 'DNS records grouped by type with values and TTLs.' While it does not mention error handling or potential network usage, these are inherent to a DNS lookup tool and the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a behavioral note, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized, with every sentence contributing useful information and no fluff. The formatting with headers and bullet-like entries enhances readability.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description provides all necessary invocation details: parameter semantics, defaults, return format, and implementation notes. It even mentions the pure-Python nature to set expectations. The output schema (not shown) likely handles precise return typing, so the description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and use the 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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter with examples and defaults: 'domain: Target domain to query (e.g. "example.com")', 'record_types: List of DNS record types to query. Defaults to all common types...', and 'nameserver: Optional custom DNS resolver IP (e.g. "8.8.8.8"). Defaults to system resolver.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 function: 'Query DNS records for a domain.' It specifies the resource (DNS records), the action (query), and enumerates supported record types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'No external process is spawned — this is a pure-Python DNS client,' which separates it from tools like dnsrecon_scan that may rely on external binaries.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it supports custom record types, defaults to common types, and offers an optional nameserver. It implies lightweight usage by noting the pure-Python implementation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'for comprehensive DNS recon, use dnsrecon_scan.' Thus it falls short of a 5.

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