sf_skills_list_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and source but does not mention output format, limitations, whether it is read-only, or any other behavioral nuances. This is thin even for a simple listing tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted text, and it is easy to parse. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it sacrifices depth.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks essential context such as return value structure and parameter effect. The tool may be simple, but the description does not adequately prepare an agent to use it correctly, especially with an optional parameter that is undocumented.

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 single parameter limitPerDomain is not described in the text, and schema coverage is 0%. The parameter name gives a hint, but the description does not clarify how it affects the output or what 'sample skills' means in relation to the limit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('skill domains and sample skills from forcedotcom/sf-skills'), making it distinct from generic listing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sf_skills_search or sf_skills_get, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be preferred over similar tools like sf_skills_search or sf_skills_get.

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