list_domains

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation (listing) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or free of side effects. It also does not mention any error conditions, rate limits, or data volume concerns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action (list all) and the resource (registered *.test domains) and includes the key output details. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns: registered domains, ports, and port status. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or limits, but for a simple list operation, this is not a critical omission. The description is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 description does not need to elaborate on them. The schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing missing. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe.

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 (list all) on a specific resource (registered *.test domains) and includes the details it returns (port and port status). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_domain, remove_domain, check_health, and doh_status, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The name and description imply this is the tool for viewing all domains, but it does not mention alternatives like check_health or any conditions that would make another tool more suitable. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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