List Micro custom domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that DNS proof state is included in the result but does not disclose behaviors such as error cases, project-link requirements, or output shape beyond that.

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 one tight sentence with no repetition of the title or schema. It front-loads the action and resource and earns its place by adding 'DNS proof state' to what is returned.

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 read-only list command with one optional parameter, a full output schema, and rich annotations, this description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The only behavioral details not spelled out, like the meaning of DNS proof states, are covered by the output schema.

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 single optional 'path' parameter is fully described in the input schema, including its default behavior, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 names a precise verb ('List') and a clear resource ('the linked project's custom domains and DNS proof state'), distinguishing this read tool from management siblings such as micro_domain_add, micro_domain_verify, and micro_domain_remove. The scoping to the linked project makes it unambiguous what this tool returns.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use for viewing custom domains and DNS proof state, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like micro_domain_verify for verification or micro_domain_add for adding domains. Usage context 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.