dns_list_domains

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation via the verb 'list' and specifies the output includes record counts, but it does not explicitly state whether any authentication is required, whether results are paginated, or any potential side effects. For a simple read tool, the implicit read-only nature is a reasonable baseline, but richer disclosure about output size or rate limits would be better.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It conveys both the scope (all domains) and an additional detail (record count) efficiently.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is entirely sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what to expect in the return (domains plus their record counts). There is no missing information required to invoke it correctly, and the simplicity of the tool lowers the burden on the description.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings, and it does not attempt to. The mention of record counts is output-related rather than parameter-related, which is outside this dimension. No gaps exist since there are no inputs to document.

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 a specific action ('列出' = list) and a precise resource ('腾讯云 DNSPod 中托管的所有域名' = all domains hosted in Tencent Cloud DNSPod). It adds a distinguishing detail—each domain's record count—which separates it from siblings like dns_list_records and cdn_list_domains without needing to open schemas.

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. It does not mention dns_list_records for records or cdn_list_domains for CDN domains, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions. Usage must be inferred purely from the resource name.

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