capabilities.domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool lists domains and their operation counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic listing.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value, stating the action, the resource, and the specific data returned.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete. It clearly specifies what is listed (craft domains) and what information is provided (number of operations each exposes).

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that standard.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'craft domains' with the additional detail 'and how many operations each exposes'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like capabilities.tools (which lists all tools) and capabilities.describe (which describes a specific tool).

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 getting a high-level overview of domains and their operation counts, distinguishing it from siblings that list or describe individual tools or capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, missing a clear 'when-not' or exclusion guidance.

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