List Domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds useful context about verification status and prerequisites for pentests, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and follow with essential context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or waste.

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 list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete—it explains what it does and why it matters. However, it could benefit from mentioning return format or pagination to be fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document.

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 the specific action ('List') and resource ('your verified domains and their verification status'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_pentests' or 'get_findings' by focusing on domain verification rather than pentests or findings.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Domains must be verified before you can run pentests against them'), linking it to the pentest workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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