list_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint — the 'kind requires domain_type' dependency — which is useful coupling information beyond the schema. But it says nothing about scope (all domain lists? per-list?), ordering, pagination, or read-only safety, so it only partially fulfills the burden.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the constraint second. Every clause 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 described. For a two-parameter optional-filter list tool, the description covers purpose, filter values, and the dependency; the only real gap is differentiating it from overlapping read siblings like search_domain and the whitelist/blacklist getters.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps the value domains ('allow/deny' for domain_type, 'exact/regex' for kind) and states the inter-parameter dependency that the schema does not express. It stops short of naming which parameter holds which enum, leaving a small inference.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('domain-list entries') that clearly separates it from mutation siblings like add_domain/update_domain and from reporting tools like get_stats. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby read tools such as search_domain, list_adlists, or get_whitelist/get_blacklist.

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?

'Optionally narrowed to allow/deny and exact/regex' hints at when the filters apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives (e.g. search_domain for lookup vs. this list). Usage is only implied.

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