panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_domains_linked

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the required OAuth scope 'docker:read', the HTTP method/endpoint, and the Docker category. No contradiction exists between the description and 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary is followed by endpoint, category, required scope, and read-only status. Every line adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter GET endpoint, the description provides the endpoint, auth requirement, and safety profile. There is no output schema, so the response shape is not explicitly described, but this is unlikely to prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly for a basic list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already shows. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List container-domain links', and the HTTP endpoint reinforces exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like panelica_docker_post_v1_docker_domains_link or unlink, but the read-versus-write distinction is strongly implied by the verb and the 'Read-only' note.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the related Docker domain link/unlink endpoints. The description provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing; the only hints are 'Read-only' and the required scope, which imply safe usage but do not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over others.

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