sage_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behaviors: results are stable, bounded, and cursor-paginated, with explicit continuation semantics (next_cursor until has_more false). It also clarifies the scope ('signed caller's authoritative current') but does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second explains pagination, third gives alternative. No redundant wording, front-loaded, 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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers key operational details (stable, bounded, pagination) and points to a sibling for related but distinct information. It is sufficiently complete for a list tool, though a note on the actual return fields (besides next_cursor/has_more) would be slightly stronger.

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 coverage is 100% (both limit and cursor documented), but the description adds value by explaining cursor usage ('continue with next_cursor until has_more is false') which enriches the cursor parameter meaning beyond schema. Limit is not elaborated beyond defaults, but baseline 3 is exceeded.

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 tool lists the signed caller's authoritative current owned domains, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates itself from reading a global roster or scanning memories, and references sibling tool sage_status for an alternative task.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use sage_status for the cheap first policy sample of readable and writable domains' names an alternative and its use case. The opening also implies when this tool is appropriate (for authoritative owned domains without global scans).

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