prufa_list_gremlin_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. While listing is likely safe, the description omits key behavioral traits beyond the list content.

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?

Single sentence with clear verb 'List' at the start. No redundant or filler language. Every word adds value: scope (authorized hosts), action (real gremlin mutations), returned fields, and plan level. Excellent conciseness.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (hosts with fields and default policy). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or limits, but given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete. Lacks mention of potential empty result behavior.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. Description adds no parameter information, but no parameters exist. The description's content about output fields does not relate to parameters, but that is acceptable given the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists authorized hosts for real gremlin mutations, including specific fields (allow_mutation flag, note, created_at) and default policy. The [Pro] designation adds context. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like prufa_list_discovery_domains or prufa_authorize_domain.

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?

Description implies usage (to see authorized hosts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like prufa_list_discovery_domains or prufa_authorize_domain. No 'when not to use' or context for exclusions. Adequate but lacks proactive guidance.

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