domain_get_directives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral — no indication of what the directives payload looks like, whether it can be empty, or any account/permission context — so it contributes no value beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short lines with zero padding, and the resource statement is front-loaded. The Args block is mildly boilerplate but carries the only parameter format hint available, so it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple single-parameter read tool. Still, with zero schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally viable — an agent could call it but has no picture of expected output shape or failure conditions.

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 description coverage is 0% (the single property has only a title, no description), so the description must compensate. It does partly: it labels full_fqdn as the full domain name and supplies a concrete example (site.ru), which is genuinely useful formatting guidance. It still omits any mention that the FQDN must already exist in the account, so this is only a partial compensation.

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 names the resource precisely (custom PHP directives of a domain), which distinguishes it from siblings like domain_add_directives and domain_remove_directives, but it contains no verb at all — it is essentially a noun phrase restating the tool name. An agent can infer retrieval from the name, not the text.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely related siblings domain_add_directives/domain_remove_directives. The agent is left to infer that this is the read counterpart based solely on the tool name.

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