list_dns_subdomains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping by server_id and the internal endpoint name, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether the list is complete. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that states the action and the key parameter. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the internal method name as a useful reference. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., subdomain names, records) or whether the list is paginated. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap, but the description could still be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, server_id, is described as 'ID сервера' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Список сабдоменов по ID сервера' (list subdomains by server ID), and includes the internal method name 'pdns/list_subdomains' for reference. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_dns_domains and add_dns_subdomain, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage context: it lists subdomains for a given server ID, which is a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_dns_domains or get_dns_zone, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not explicit.

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