infomaniak_list_domains

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral scope ('every domain owned by an Infomaniak organization') and discloses the returned attributes (creation and expiration dates). It does not discuss pagination, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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?

Single declarative sentence with a front-loaded verb and object. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a simple list operation with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema. The description adequately specifies the scope and key return fields, and no further behavioral details are necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with account_id already documented as optional, defaulting to the first account the token has access to, and discoverable via infomaniak_overview. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List every domain owned by an Infomaniak organization, with creation and expiration dates.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as infomaniak_get_domain and infomaniak_get_domain_full by emphasizing enumeration of all domains rather than a single domain lookup.

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 use for enumerating all domains in an organization, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like infomaniak_get_domain_full or infomaniak_list_sites, nor does it mention exclusions. The optional account_id guidance is present in the schema rather than the description.

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