liara_get_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns partial/full details. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential errors, or dependencies on other tools like 'liara_list_domains'. For a tool without structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'domainId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining where to obtain the domain ID or its format. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 'Get details of a domain' clearly states the action (get) and resource (domain), but it's vague about what 'details' includes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'liara_list_domains' (list vs get details) and 'liara_add_domain' (create vs read), but lacks specificity about the scope of details returned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a domain ID from 'liara_list_domains'), nor does it clarify use cases like checking domain status versus configuration. The presence of sibling tools like 'liara_list_domains' and 'liara_remove_domain' suggests context, but the description provides no usage instructions.

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