inspect_clock_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured information: only explicitly configured relationships are reported and none are inferred from co-location, which tells the agent how to interpret missing edges in the result.

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 sentences with no filler: the first declares the return content, the second declares the key limitation. Both earn their place and the payload description is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, return shape needn't be described, and zero parameters remove input ambiguity; annotations cover safety. The only residual gap is guidance on when to choose this against the many time/clock siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema itself confirms an empty argument object.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the explicitly configured clock graph, directed mappings, and validity/uncertainty data. That is clearly distinct from live-status siblings like get_ptp_status or get_chrony_status, though no sibling is named explicitly to make the routing unambiguous.

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 note 'No relationship is inferred from sharing a host' scopes what the tool will and won't report, which implies its usage (static configuration view rather than discovered topology). However, it never says when to prefer this over inspect_time_services, get_ptp_status, or inspect_ros_clock, so selection is left to inference.

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