list_domain_groups

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or return format. It is consistent with the annotation but does not go beyond it.

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, short phrase that is efficient and front-loaded. It is not verbose, but it also adds no information beyond the tool name itself. For such a simple tool, this is acceptable, though slightly under-specified.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema provided, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool is part of a large family of domain-related list operations, and the description does not help the agent understand where domain groups fit or which sibling to choose. It is minimally sufficient but not fully 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 schema confirms this with an empty object. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 '列出域名分组' translates to 'List domain groups', which clearly states the action (list) and resource (domain groups). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ip_groups and list_mac_groups by naming the specific resource. However, it does not elaborate on what a domain group is or its purpose, so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context like 'use this to view domain groups for ACL rules' or differentiate from list_domain_blacklist or list_domain_forwarding_rules. There is no implied usage beyond the literal action.

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