list_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently discloses both the main listing action and a notable edge case (skipped files with no Trigger line). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only status or permissions, 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with two closely related clauses. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and a valuable edge-case behavior. The output schema likely handles return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the input surface. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-specific noise.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('every domain loaded from the rules pack'), and adds a distinct secondary behavior about reporting skipped files. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_domain, which likely fetches a single 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?

The context is clear: this is for enumerating all domains in the rules pack, not for looking up one specific domain (which get_domain likely handles). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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