Dns Trace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses the actual walk order (zone cuts from root), the skip rule for non-zone labels so they are 'not mistaken for a broken delegation,' and the precise DNSSEC-break criterion (signed zone with no parent DS). It stops short of operational traits such as network dependency, timeout behavior, or failure reporting.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and each paragraph contributes distinct information (skip behavior, record-type independence, DNSSEC break definition). There is minor redundancy — 'from root' appears twice and 'delegation chain' overlaps with 'delegation/chain-of-trust structure' — keeping it just below the zero-waste 5 bar.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input, the trace behavior, and the DNSSEC break semantics well. Remaining gaps (network requirements, timing, failure modes for nonexistent domains) are minor given that return values are already specified by the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds an incidental interpretation detail — non-zone labels in the input are skipped during the trace — but offers no format guidance (trailing dot, IDN, etc.), so the baseline of 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Trace DNS resolution from root to authoritative nameservers.' The body further differentiates from record-query siblings like dns_lookup by stressing that it walks the delegation chain (zone cuts), shows nameservers and DNSSEC signing status, and is 'independent of any particular record type.'

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 gives clear context for when to invoke it: for delegation/chain-of-trust structure rather than record-type queries, and for diagnosing DNSSEC breaks. It explains the island-of-security condition an agent can look for, but it never names alternatives (e.g., dns_lookup, local_dig) or states explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so 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.