dns_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states '[SAFE]' implying no side effects, but lacks details on error responses, rate limiting, caching behavior, or whether it performs a live DNS query versus using a cached result.

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 conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the safe indicator.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke it. It omits parameter formats, default values (e.g., default type A), and any explanation of the return format or error handling.

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 0%, and the description adds only minimal value: it labels 'type' and 'server' as optional but does not explain the meaning of record types or the server parameter. The enum values for 'type' are listed in the schema but not elaborated, leaving ambiguity for agents.

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 queries DNS records for a domain, specifying optional type and server. It identifies the resource (DNS records) and the verb (Query). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools such as dns_zone_query or network_dns_resolve.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '[SAFE]' tag hints at read-only usage, but there are no details on prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are numerous and related, yet the description offers no comparative advice.

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