storage_domain_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly explains the status behavior (null when data center read fails, with statusErrors), and mentions the `truncated` flag for pagination. This adds valuable context beyond the bare schema.

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 tightly written with no filler. It front-loads the operation and result, then devotes exactly two sentences to the parameters. Every sentence 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?

Given a list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances (status source, null handling, truncation). It does not describe the output structure, but that is not required without an output schema, and the tool is simple enough that the agent can call it correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates. It explains `limit` (range, default, and that `truncated` indicates more rows) and `target` (engine target from config, omit for default). This is far richer than the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with '[READ] Storage domains with status and capacity', naming the exact resource and operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling storage_domain_get by implying a list operation, and adds specific detail (free, used, committed bytes and %) that clarifies the return scope.

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 a list operation but does not explicitly contrast it with storage_domain_get or other siblings. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer that it is for listing domains rather than fetching a single one.

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