mailu_list_domains

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'list' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains (e.g., domain names, objects), or any authorization requirements. The description is too minimal to provide behavioral transparency.

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 in French, front-loading the key action. It is efficient and to the point. However, it could be slightly improved by using English or adding minimal context.

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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource (domains) and scope (managed by Mailu), but lacks details on the output format or any implicit constraints. A complete description would at least mention that it returns a list of domain names or objects.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no parameter info but is not required.

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 all mail domains managed by Mailu. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (domains), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailu_get_domain (single domain) and mailu_create_domain (creation).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. For a list tool, it could benefit from indicating that it returns all domains without filtering.

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