redirects_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' does convey a read-only operation, and the args clarify that domain is the scope and impersonate is the owning user. It does not describe additional behavior such as auth requirements, ordering, or whether hidden/system redirects are included, but for a simple list tool the basic behavior is sufficiently clear.

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 short and front-loads the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. It is not bloated, though the 'domain: Domain.' line is somewhat redundant and could have been enriched without sacrificing conciseness.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description gives the essential information: what is listed and which arguments control the request. It leaves out explicit usage boundaries and behavioral detail, but the output schema covers return values and the operation is straightforward.

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 compensate. It names both parameters and adds a clarifying gloss for impersonate ('Owning user'), which is more than the bare schema provides. The domain parameter description is tautological ('Domain'), so the added value is limited.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List site redirects for a domain.' This distinguishes it from the nearby sibling redirects_create and no other sibling lists redirects, so an agent can identify the right tool immediately.

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 use case is implied by the purpose sentence: call it when you need the site redirects belonging to a domain. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or any mention of alternatives such as redirects_create, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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