umbrella_get_internal_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the scope is stated, which is useful. But the description does not disclose auth requirements, pagination semantics, or output format; for a list tool with limit/offset parameters, that would add value.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and the key qualifying condition. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 straightforward GET/list tool with optional paging parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the resource and selection criteria. It does not describe the return shape, but no output schema exists and the resource name makes the expected result reasonably clear.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a descriptive schema entry. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but at full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The additionalParams escape hatch is also documented in the schema.

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 states the action ('Get'), the resource ('internal domains'), and the specific condition ('configured to bypass Umbrella DNS resolution'). This distinguishes it from siblings like umbrella_list_internal_networks by resource type. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool — when an agent needs the list of internal domains that bypass Umbrella DNS resolution. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool would be a better alternative, such as umbrella_list_internal_networks or umbrella_list_destinations.

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