list_domain

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing safety and side effects. The verb 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the parameters are documented, but there is no explicit statement about permissions, return format beyond 'metadata and summaries', or any additional behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description offers only the basic expectation of a non-mutating listing operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a cleanly formatted Args block. There is no redundancy or filler. The front-loaded purpose makes the tool's intent immediately clear.

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 an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose and parameters. It does not mention sorting or pagination, but the output schema likely handles return structure. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance, which is already penalized in the usage guidelines dimension. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, but the description adds meaningful semantics for every parameter. It enumerates allowed values for 'domain', specifies the date format and inclusivity for 'date_from' and 'date_to', and explains 'max_results' with its default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'List available files in a domain with metadata and summaries.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or read, which focus on content retrieval rather than enumeration. The domain values (sessions, transcripts, notifications) further clarify the resource scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to choose list_domain over the sibling tools (search, read, summary, rebuild, search_history, search_log). The presence of the domain argument implies usage, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'Use this to enumerate files; use search to find specific content.'

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