pirsch_list_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but 'safe domain summaries' is vague and does not disclose details like rate limits, errors, or any side effects. The transparency is adequate but not rich, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List every Pirsch domain'), and every phrase adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose (domain selection for statistics queries) and the scope (domains available to the OAuth client). Some details about the return format are absent, but the simplicity keeps the bar low.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly provides no parameter information since none exists, and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'every Pirsch domain', clearly showing the tool's purpose. It also adds context about the OAuth client and the intended use for selecting domainId in statistics queries, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pirsch_get_domain and pirsch_query_statistics.

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 implies when to use the tool: before querying statistics, to obtain domainId values. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context of the sibling tools and the stated purpose provide clear guidance on its usage without needing exclusions.

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