asc__discover_domains

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it discloses that the output varies by mode, listing profiles, sub-profiles, loaded status, tool counts, or tool domains. This goes beyond the annotation's simple read-only flag and helps the agent predict 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence packs the core functionality and mode distinctions, while the second gives a clear usage trigger. Each phrase 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?

Given the tool's simple no-parameter interface and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the key use cases and output types (profiles vs. domains) sufficiently. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'tool domains' means or how the results are formatted, but it is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description appropriately does not invent any. Since the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4; the description's explanation of profile mode and tool domains compensates for any possible ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource as 'what this server can reach and what it cannot', with distinct modes for profiles vs. tool domains. It distinguishes itself from the many CRUD sibling tools and implies a discovery function separate from asc__search_tools.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when a capability you need is not in the tool list', which provides a clear condition for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' guidance.

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