dns_enum

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

There is a clear contradiction: the description states 'enumerate' (a read operation), but annotations set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. This misalignment undermines behavioral transparency. Additionally, no details about network access, rate limits, or potential side effects are provided.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and lists specifics concisely.

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?

The description omits any mention of output format or return structure, which is especially relevant since no output schema is provided. It addresses core functionality but lacks completeness for an agent to fully anticipate results.

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 a clear description for the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers. With full schema coverage, a baseline score 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 description specifies the verb 'enumerate' and resource 'DNS records for a domain', listing specific record types (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME) and additional detection of missing SPF/DMARC. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like port_scan or ping_sweep.

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 implies usage when DNS records are needed, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor mention alternatives. Given the sibling list includes no other DNS-specific tools, it is somewhat clear but lacks guidance on prerequisites or edge cases.

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