infomaniak_nodejs_app_aliases

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact return payload (primary FQDN plus preview URL) and noting that it is Manager-private, implying access restrictions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences, starts with the action verb 'List', and contains no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description explains what the tool returns, which combined with the output schema provides useful context. However, it lacks explicit parameter explanation and usage guidance, leaving the required inputs ambiguous. Given the tool's simplicity and annotated safety, it is partially complete but has clear gaps.

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 input schema requires hosting_id and vhost_route_id, but the description does not mention or explain these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden to clarify the meaning of these identifiers, and it fails to do so, leaving users without guidance on what values are expected.

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 specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'FQDNs (domain names) serving a Node.js application,' explicitly stating the return includes the primary FQDN and automatic preview URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_site_aliases by scoping to Node.js apps, and from get_nodejs_app which focuses on broader app details.

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 this tool is used to retrieve FQDNs for a Node.js app, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over related tools such as list_site_aliases or get_nodejs_app, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The 'Manager-private' note hints at restricted access but does not offer usage guidance.

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