get_domain_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the returned mode values, explains what each mode means, and discloses a non-obvious behavioral rule — that a non-conforming domain is adjusted rather than rejected and the writer's result carries a domain_adjusted note. That is exactly the kind of cross-tool consequence an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, return shape second, write-time consequence third, then the usage cue. Every sentence adds information; none restates the name or 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?

No parameters, no output schema, and the description fills that gap by specifying the return payload and the semantics of each value, plus how it interacts with writes. Nothing needed to call this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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: 'Report the store's domain-casing policy.' It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set_domain_case, which mutates rather than reads. An agent can classify the tool without opening anything else.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: 'Read this before coining a new domain so its casing matches what will be stored.' That is a clear when-to-use trigger, though it never names the counterpart set_domain_case or states when not to call it.

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