domains_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only indicates a read operation ('List') but fails to disclose authentication needs, return format, pagination, or error behaviors. This lack of detail leaves agents uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description is sufficient for a simple list tool with one parameter, it lacks details about return values (no output schema) and does not clarify how the result relates to other domain operations. Given the complexity and sibling tools, more context would be beneficial.

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 already documents the 'project_id' parameter well (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'ProjectDomain aggregates', and the scope 'for a project'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'domains_get' or 'domains_activate' that perform different actions.

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 for listing domains but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the naming convention helps differentiate it from other domain tools.

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