get_domain_overview

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It states this is a read operation that fetches data from domain-graph.json and returns a list of domains with flows, entity counts, and summaries, which covers basic behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential performance implications, error behavior for unknown projects, or any prerequisites.

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, using one sentence for purpose and a simple Args/Returns breakdown for the rest. There is no redundant text, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description captures the core purpose, input, and output, making the tool understandable at a glance. However, it lacks usage context and enriched parameter detail, and with an output schema already available, the returns section adds little. Overall, it's sufficient for a simple overview tool but not exhaustive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It only provides 'project: Project name,' which adds minimal semantic meaning beyond the schema's property name. It doesn't clarify what a project name refers to, whether it must match a specific format, or what happens if it's null.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a summary of all business domains and their flows, specifying the source file and output contents. It distinguishes itself from detail-oriented siblings by using 'overview' and 'all domains,' though it doesn't explicitly recommend against using detail tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus get_domain_detail or get_domain_flow_detail. The description does not include use cases, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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