list_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one behavioral note (workspace-standard master behavior) and hints at return content, but omits details like read-only nature, error handling, or output format beyond name/data type.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a single clarifying caveat. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return fields (name, data type) and source-specific behavior, which is sufficient for most use cases, though it lacks explicit error/edge-case info.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the workspaceId variant's special behavior ('reads the latest workspace-standard master'), which goes beyond the schema's generic source description.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('domain definitions'), and the included fields ('name, data type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_relationships and list_erds.

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 by listing domains from various sources and highlights a special behavior for workspaceId sources, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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