memory_domains

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral output detail—that it returns domains along with their .md file counts—which is the main behavior an agent needs to know for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool.

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?

One compact sentence (plus a parallel Chinese translation) that front-loads the verb and resource and adds only the essential output detail. No filler or schema repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent listing tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return content (domains plus .md counts). There are no arguments to document and no side effects to warn about; nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description contributes the relevant semantic context by specifying what the returned list contains, and there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for.

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 ('List'), a concrete resource ('memory domains'), and the exact output contents (their .md file counts). This is distinct enough from generic siblings like memory_list or memory_stats because it names the domain-level aggregation rather than just listing memories or general stats.

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 choose this tool over siblings such as memory_list, memory_stats, or memory_search. The description only states what the tool does; an agent must infer when the domain-level .md count view is the right call.

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