Roo — list custom domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates read-only intent via 'List', confirms the data source is authoritative/web-app-backed, and describes the output contents. It does not mention pagination, error behavior, or auth expectations, but for an account-level list operation the scope and no-side-effect nature are sufficiently disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, all informative: the core behavior is front-loaded, the authoritative note adds context, and the shortlink-domain distinction prevents a real misuse. No filler or redundancy. The description earns each sentence.

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 optional-filter-list tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: behavior, scope, output ingredients, and how it relates to the shortlink-domain concept. It stops short of detailing exact response structure or list ordering, but those are not critical for this tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents status_filter including known values. The description adds marginally by mentioning status and verification details, which helps the agent infer what filtering and output mean, but it does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom domains attached to the account'), and states the output payload: status and verification details. It also draws a clear line against the domain a SHORTLINK is on, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool the agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 first sentence makes the intended use case obvious: query all account-level custom domains. The explicit distinction from the domain a particular SHORTLINK is on is a useful when-not signal, preventing a common misconception, though it does not name the exact sibling tool to use instead.

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