domains_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'domains and domain aliases' hints at the return content, but it does not mention any limitations, permissions, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a zero-parameter read tool, but not richly transparent.

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 front-loads the action and resource with no extraneous words. It earns its place perfectly for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description is surprisingly complete for the tool's simplicity. It states exactly what is listed and the scope. A 5 would require additional context about return format or usage notes, but for a zero-param tool this is largely unnecessary.

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 schema already provides exhaustive coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description need not compensate for missing parameter semantics since none exist.

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 'List the domains and domain aliases in the org', using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools, which list users, groups, devices, etc. The scope 'in the org' adds precision.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states the core action, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.

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