openemis_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. The description does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely), idempotent, or has any side effects. It also does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. Given no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose, output content, and a hint for further action. Every part serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides enough context about what it returns (list of domains with summaries and endpoint counts) and hints at the next step. It is complete for a simple list tool, though it could optionally describe the return format (e.g., array vs object) for added clarity.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. The description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 all available domains with summaries and endpoint counts, and it hints at further exploration via openemis_discover. It distinguishes itself from siblings like openemis_get (retrieving a specific resource) and openemis_list_playbooks (listing playbooks) by specifying the resource type (domains) and the information provided (summaries, counts).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It suggests exploring via openemis_discover after listing domains, but it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like openemis_health. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than direct.

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