add_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the key side effect (reloads Caddy) and the required domain naming pattern. However, it omits details like idempotency, failure modes, or whether existing entries are overwritten, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action, followed by the naming constraint and an example. There is zero filler, and every part contributes to understanding the tool. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the side effect, naming rules, and an example. It is mostly complete, but it does not describe what the return value or success/failure indications look like, which would be helpful for an agent interpreting the result.

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 descriptions are already clear (name without .test, local port), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the exact character pattern for name ([a-z0-9-]) and providing a concrete example, which goes beyond the schema. This elevates the score to 4.

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 specific action (register a .test domain pointing to 127.0.0.1:port) and explicitly mentions reloading Caddy, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_domains or remove_domain. The verb 'Daftarkan' and resource are clear, and the example reinforces the purpose.

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 a naming constraint ([a-z0-9-]) and a concrete example, which clarifies when and how to call it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the sibling names make the intended use obvious. The guidance is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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