dns_export_zone_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Export domain records' without confirming whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. It also does not describe error handling, rate limits, or response structure beyond 'content as string.' The absence of such details makes behavior opaque.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single sentence for the main action plus labeled sections for Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, contains no redundancy, and every element earns its place. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 export tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic action and return type. However, it omits usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and any mention of relationships to sibling tools. The lack of context around when to use this tool versus alternatives makes it incomplete, even though the low complexity reduces the need for extensive detail.

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 describes the single parameter 'domain' only as a string with no description. The description adds a minimal explanation: 'The domain name to export.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose but lacks format validation, examples, or edge-case details (e.g., whether subdomains are allowed). Given the 0% schema coverage, this partial compensation is adequate but not thorough.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Export domain records as standard DNS zone file format.' It differentiates from siblings like dns_import_zone_file (import) and dns_list_records (list records in a different format) by specifying the output format. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., domain must exist), exclusions, or situations where another tool like dns_list_records or dns_get_record would be more appropriate. The lack of any usage context leaves selection to inference.

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