Get settings domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the returned list is the user's equivalent-domains configuration for autofill matching, but it does not describe authentication needs, return shape, or edge cases.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only GET with no required parameters and rich annotations, and the description explains the core resource. However, it leaves all three generic schema parameters unexplained and gives no return-value context despite there being no output schema.

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 three parameters (form, params, json_body) with 0% description coverage, and the description says nothing about what they mean or when to supply them. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter semantics at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the user's configured equivalent-domains list. It even clarifies the domain context as autofill matching, which distinguishes it from generic settings retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutation tools such as vaultwarden_post_settings_domains or vaultwarden_put_settings_domains, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. The read verb implies retrieval, but the description does not route the agent away from related write tools like post_settings_domains or put_settings_domains.

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