ecp_network_domain_port_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' does indicate a read operation, but the description does not disclose the output shape, pagination, error behavior, permissions, or any limitations beyond the domain scope.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place by conveying the action, resource, and scope.

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 simple one-required-parameter read tool, this is minimally adequate: the agent can infer the action and the input. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return-value details and exact domain semantics, leaving gaps.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'domain' parameter beyond echoing its name. It does not clarify whether domain refers to a domain name, an ID, or a specific format, leaving the agent to guess.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('port mappings'), and a scope qualifier ('for one domain'). This clearly distinguishes it from the unfiltered sibling ecp_network_port_maps and the mutating ecp_network_update_port_maps.

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 phrase 'for one domain' implies this tool is for single-domain queries, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over ecp_network_port_maps or when to avoid it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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