infomaniak_nodejs_app_aliases

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns primary FQDN and preview URL, and notes 'Manager-private' – an access restriction not in annotations. This is useful but limited. No contradictions with 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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundancy, but could include parameter explanations. Still, it's efficiently written.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context) and annotations covering safety, the description adds return value details and access hint. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation leaves a gap. For a simple read tool it is adequate but not thorough.

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 has two required integer parameters (hosting_id, vhost_route_id) with 0% description coverage in schema. The description does not explain their meaning or purpose, forcing the agent to infer. This severely hinders correct invocation.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'FQDNs serving a Node.js application'. It specifies the output includes primary FQDN and preview URL. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'infomaniak_list_site_aliases', which might list aliases for sites generally vs Node.js apps. The purpose is mostly clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., infomaniak_list_site_aliases or other Node.js app tools). There are no when-not or context cues. The 'Manager-private' remark hints at restricted access but doesn't guide usage.

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