wafle_domains_status

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing what data is returned (SSL expiry, last renewal, log, DNS instructions) and notes the ability to re-show DNS-setup instructions, which is behavior beyond the basic read-only hint.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core function, followed by practical usage examples. Every sentence adds value, though the first paragraph could be slightly more compact.

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 read-only status tool, the description covers the output details and use cases well, especially given the lack of an output schema. However, it omits parameter relationship details and potential edge cases, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 67% (slug and include_log have descriptions), but the required id parameter has no description, and the tool description does not clarify how id and slug are used. This is a significant gap for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 fetches the full status of a single attached domain, listing specific data points like status, SSL expiry, and renewal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as wafle_domains_list, wafle_domains_add, and wafle_domains_verify.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: answering 'is the domain working yet?' and debugging stuck verification. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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