Discover domain roots on server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description reinforces with 'scan' and 'show' and adds context about what is inspected (home directory, public_html presence). No contradiction and useful detail about the discovery criteria. Simple read-only tool needs little more.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and output, then a clear follow-up pointer. No filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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?

Given one optional parameter, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's input, action, and result. It also directs the agent to a sibling tool for the next action. No significant gaps.

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?

Input schema covers the single optional server_id parameter with a description and default behavior, so schema coverage is 100%. Description does not add parameter-level details, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the meaning.

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?

Specific verb 'scan' with explicit resource (server home directory, domains with public_html). It contrasts with list_roots by focusing on unconfigured domains, and references add_root as the next step. Clear differentiation from siblings.

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 clear context: use to find domains on the server that have public_html but are not yet configured. Recommends add_root for managing discovered domains. Does not explicitly contrast with list_roots or other alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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