infomaniak_dns_list_records

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the input constraint (root domain). It does not contradict annotations.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The action statement and usage constraint are front-loaded and precise.

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 1 parameter and rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) plus an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what input it expects, and how to format it.

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 already describes the 'zone' parameter as root domain. The description reinforces this and adds the explicit 'not a subdomain' rule, providing additional clarity beyond the schema.

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 action ('List every DNS record') and the resource ('a zone managed by Infomaniak'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/update. It also specifies the correct input format (root domain, not subdomain).

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 provides a clear usage constraint ('Use the root domain, not a subdomain'), but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. However, the purpose is clear enough given the sibling names.

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