infomaniak_list_site_aliases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'Manager-private' indicates access restrictions, and the explanation of FQDNs/vhost/DocumentRoot clarifies what the listing represents and why aliases matter.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place: the first states what it lists, the second explains the technical context, and the third gives the practical use case. No redundancy or fluff.

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 a rich output schema, complete annotations, and two fully described parameters, the description fills remaining gaps: it explains the vhost/DocumentRoot relationship, notes manager-private access, and connects to WordPress/domain serving. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for a list operation.

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 both site_id and hosting_id already well-described in the input schema ('Discover via infomaniak_find_site', etc.). The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the FQDNs (main + aliases) bound to a web hosting site.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_sites by focusing on aliases/FQDNs rather than sites themselves, and even clarifies the relationship to add_site_aliases/delete_site_alias.

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 clear context: it explains the aliases share the same Apache vhost/DocumentRoot and that adding an alias serves more domains from one WordPress install. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is evident and well-scoped.

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