Xem bản ghi DNS của tên miền

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the record types that will be listed and notes the domain is registered at MONA Cloud, but does not describe return format, pagination, ordering, or any other runtime behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose with concrete record type examples, and the second adds the parameter sourcing. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is efficient 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 simple list tool with one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and where to get the input. It does not mention pagination or the shape of returned data, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by stating 'domain_id lấy từ cloud_domain_list', which clarifies where to obtain the required identifier. The schema provides a pattern (24 hex characters) but no textual description, so this added sourcing information is valuable, though it does not explain the format itself.

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 states a specific verb ('Liệt kê' = list) and resource ('bản ghi DNS' = DNS records) with example record types (A/CNAME/MX/TXT), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like cloud_domain_dns_add or cloud_domain_dns_update, but the list verb implies a read operation distinct from the write 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?

The description provides a prerequisite context: 'domain_id lấy từ cloud_domain_list' (get domain_id from cloud_domain_list). This implicitly tells the agent to call cloud_domain_list first, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., DNS add/update/delete) or when not to use it.

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