scf_list_domains

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the taxonomy and domain examples, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, response shape, or clarify that 'every' means active domains by default. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying what domains are and providing distinguishing examples.

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 read-only listing tool, the description plus parameter schema is nearly complete. It clearly conveys what will be returned conceptually, though there is no output schema and the description does not mention response format or pagination. This is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the include_deprecated parameter fully documented in the schema, including its default behavior and lifecycle badge. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'List every compliance domain in the SCF taxonomy.' The added explanation that domains group related controls, with concrete examples (GOV, AST, IAC), clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like scf_list_frameworks and scf_list_controls.

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 that this tool is for browsing the SCF taxonomy by domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scf_list_controls or scf_list_frameworks. There is enough context to infer the purpose, but no direct routing or exclusion guidance.

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