domain_pointers_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description names the relevant domain and impersonation context. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as whether results are paginated, whether all aliases are returned at once, or whether any permissions are needed beyond what the impersonate parameter suggests.

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 concise, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and relevant parameter details in a clean Args block. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It lacks usage guidance and deeper behavioral notes, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema make the definition reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning, and it does. It explains that 'domain' is the parent domain and 'impersonate' is the owning user. This goes beyond the bare schema titles of 'Domain' and 'Impersonate' and gives an agent enough context to populate the parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List domain pointers (aliases) for a domain.' This clearly identifies the operation and object. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like domain_pointers_create or domain_pointers_delete, but the action verb and tool name make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool rather than related domain pointer tools or other listing tools. It does not state whether it should be used to check existing aliases before creating or deleting one, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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