sendcraft_list_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, return format, pagination, or other behaviors. The spam warning is about email delivery consequences, not the tool's behavior itself.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence and a relevant warning in the second. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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, the description covers the key output (domains and DNS status) and adds a useful warning about unverified domains. It lacks explicit mention of read-only nature or output structure, but given its simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description's mention of domains and DNS status aligns with the schema's emptiness. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 tool lists sender domains and their DNS verification status (SPF, DKIM, DMARC). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like sendcraft_add_domain, sendcraft_verify_domain, and sendcraft_analyze_dmarc.

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 implies usage context (checking verification status before sending, given the spam warning) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sendcraft_verify_domain or sendcraft_get_stats. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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