storage_domain_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — status provenance via statusSource, deliberate nulls rather than guesses when statusErrors occur, and a truncated flag indicating more rows exist. No auth or rate-limit details, but the provenance semantics are a real value-add.

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?

Front-loaded with the read tag and purpose, then the status-provenance caveat, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information — no filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the null-status edge case, and pagination via truncated. It could note how this differs from storage_domain_get, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, and it does: limit is documented with range 1-1000, default 100, and the truncated signal; target is explained as an engine target name from config with a default when omitted. Both parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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 and resource — listing storage domains — and enumerates the returned attributes (status, free/used/committed bytes and %). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling storage_domain_get by being a listing operation, but never names that sibling, so it falls short of explicit differentiation.

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 '[READ]' tag and the listing framing imply usage, and the target arg hints at multi-engine contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as storage_domain_get or storage_capacity_rca.

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