list_instrument_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that each domain includes a background_color (hex or null) used for differentiation in expert tables, but does not explicitly state the operation is non-destructive or mention authentication, rate limits, or return structure beyond the output schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a specific detail about the background_color field. No redundant information is present.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, list operation, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the purpose and a notable output field. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but for a list tool this is acceptable.

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 has 100% coverage for the single required parameter (instrument_id). The description echoes the parameter's purpose ('pada instrumen') but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's description.

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 the tool lists dimensions/domains with construct definitions for an instrument, using the verb 'list' and the resource 'instrument domains'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action is distinct enough from create/delete/update/get.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_instrument (for a single domain) or list_instrument_items. It does not specify prerequisites like instrument existence or permission requirements.

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