check_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool checks connection/DNS status, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose prerequisites (e.g., domain must be configured).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by briefly hinting at the result (e.g., 'returns status or errors'), but as is, it adequately covers the core functionality.

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 coverage is 100% and describes the domain parameter with an example. The description adds value by tying the parameter to the 'Kleap app' context, clarifying the purpose beyond the schema's basic type and example.

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 'Check' and resource 'domain's connection / DNS status' within the context of a Kleap app. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_domain (action) and search_domains (search).

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 description implies usage for checking domain DNS/connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like check_task or connect_domain. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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