dns_list_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read/list operation and what fields the result includes, which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior for invalid domains, pagination, or whether the list is complete/untruncated.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that leads with the core action and domain scope, then lists the returned fields. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, the result scope, and the returned fields. It is slightly lacking in usage caveats and behavioral details, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter with an example ('example.com'). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the domain parameter beyond what the schema states, so it sits at the baseline.

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 ('列出') and resource ('所有解析记录') scoped to a domain, and enumerates the returned fields (record ID, subdomain, type, value, TTL, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_list_domains, dns_create_record, and dns_delete_record.

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 intended use is implied: when you need all DNS records for a given domain. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over dns_list_domains, nor does it mention that creation/deletion are handled by separate tools. No exclusion or alternative-condition guidance is provided.

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