List CDN troubleshoots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description does add useful value by mapping the tool to the underlying official CDN API call, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what a 'run' contains.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler, front-loaded with the read marker and the core purpose. Every token earns its place.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the API it maps to, and annotations carry the safety profile. The only real omission is any hint about result size or pagination behavior.

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%; the only meaning comes from the JSON Schema pattern/length constraints, not the description. 'For a domain' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, scope, or ownership detail beyond what the schema already enforces.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (troubleshoot runs) scoped to a domain, and the endpoint mapping (GET /domains/{domain}/troubleshoots) confirms it. It reads clearly against siblings like get_latest_troubleshoot and create_troubleshoot, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_latest_troubleshoot for the most recent run or create_troubleshoot to start one. The '[READ]' tag and domain scope only imply context rather than stating it.

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