lucky_list_ddnss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate them. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format or pagination, so it stays at a baseline score.

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?

A single concise sentence states the action and the target resource with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent list operation, the description gives the essential information. The absence of an output schema means the return shape is not specified, but 'list' implies a collection of DDNS objects; still, a bit more detail about returned fields would make it fully 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description's mention of listing objects is consistent with a no-input list operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Lucky ddns objects'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly differs from sibling list tools for certificates, STUN rules, port forwards, and web services by naming 'ddns' as the target resource.

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 resource-specific wording implies when to use it: any time DDNS objects need to be listed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the name and description are sufficient to rule out the other list_* tools; no exclusions are necessary for a simple read-only list.

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