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 discloses key behaviors: for rename, it states memories move and an alternate name is registered automatically; for list, it specifies what is returned. It could mention side effects like idempotency or permissions, but it is still fairly transparent.

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 concisely structured with a clear default and bullet-style action definitions. Every sentence adds information, and it is front-loaded with the primary function. No fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity (multiple actions, 6 params, no annotations or output schema), the description covers actions, requirements, and a failure case. It lacks explicit output format details for some actions, but it does mention what list and resolve return, making it fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter roles in context (e.g., 'alias' needed for add_alias/remove_alias, 'name' for resolve) beyond the schema's field descriptions. It does not repeat schema text but provides action-specific semantics.

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's purpose as 'Domain administration and discovery' and distinguishes multiple actions (list, add_alias, remove_alias, resolve, rename), each with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'connect' by focusing on domain management.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each action, including a default behavior (list). It also warns about a failure case for rename and suggests an alternative (merge_domains CLI), which helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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