liara_list_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'attached to apps' means contextually. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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—'List all domains attached to apps' directly conveys the core action and scope. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 list operation with pagination parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource but lacks details on return format, error handling, or the meaning of 'attached to apps.' With 100% schema coverage for inputs, it's complete enough for basic use but leaves gaps in output and behavioral context.

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 all four parameters (page, perPage, limit, offset) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as default values or interdependencies (e.g., that limit is an alternative to perPage). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all domains attached to apps'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_get_domain' or 'liara_list_dns_records' which might also involve domain-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest level of specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'liara_get_domain' (likely for single domain details) and 'liara_list_dns_records' (potentially overlapping in domain context), there's no explicit or implied direction for selection. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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