get_cdashig_domains_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (dict with version and list of domains with metadata) and the default-version behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid versions, how headers_ affects the request, or what metadata the domains include.

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 docstring structure with Args, Returns, and Example is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise and contains no filler. The example typo (get_cdash_domains_list instead of get_cdashig_domains_list) slightly detracts from an otherwise clean structure.

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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool it covers arguments, default behavior, and return type. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, more detail about headers_ formatting and domain metadata would be needed for fully self-contained invocation. The example typo and schema/description mismatch also reduce completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain cdashig_version with format examples and the latest-version default, and it identifies headers_ as custom headers. However, headers_ is underspecified, and the description says it is a dict while the schema declares string, creating ambiguity.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get list of all CDASH domains for a specific CDASHIG version.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_cdashig_domain_structure and get_cdashig_field_details, which focus on structure or field details rather than the domain list.

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?

It gives useful usage context for the version argument and the default-latest behavior, but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Among many CDASHIG and library siblings, there is no pointer to a more appropriate tool for structure or field queries, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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