get_auth_domain

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action 'Get' which implies a read operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or data sensitivity.

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 extremely concise with two lines, front-loading the purpose. No redundant information; every word 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 the tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema exists, the description is adequate. It explains the parameter but could be slightly more complete by noting that the realm must exist or what the return value represents.

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 schema has 0% description coverage but the description provides helpful examples for the 'realm' parameter (e.g., 'pam', 'pve', 'my-ldap'), adding meaning beyond the schema's title and type.

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 clearly states 'Get authentication domain configuration' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_auth_domains' which returns all domains, relying on the tool name to convey the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_auth_domains' or 'sync_auth_domain'. There is no mention of prerequisites, failure cases, or context for invocation.

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