nemesis_edge_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the status lifecycle (pending until nameservers delegated, then active) and the API key requirement. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate, enriching the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes essential status details and auth prerequisite, and contains no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it explains what is listed, the meaning of the statuses, and the required authentication. No output schema exists, but the return values are self-explanatory given the list semantics.

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 there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.

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', identifies the resource 'domains behind Nemesis Edge', and specifies scope 'for the developer's account' with status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nemesis_provision_edge or nemesis_protect.

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 it: to view domains and zone status for the account. It also states the prerequisite of NEMESIS_API_KEY, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, unlike some sibling-differentiating descriptions.

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