fleet_domain_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns a paginated envelope, domain summaries, a 404 meaning the integration_id is wrong, and a note that the tool does not list VCF integrations—these are valuable beyond the annotations.

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 structured with a clear title line, usage context, error handling, and an Args block. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and the layout makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description still informs the agent of return contents (domain summaries with id, name, type, status) and the paginated envelope. It covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and error semantics, making it self-sufficient for a 3-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Although the schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), the description comprehensively explains all three parameters: integration_id is a UUID from the Operations UI, limit defaults to 50 and None returns all, and target defaults to config. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions and adds precise meaning.

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 opens with '[READ] List the SDDC/workload domains behind one registered VCF integration', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like fleet_certificate_list or list_resources. It also specifies the domain summaries returned (id, name, type, status), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to enumerate the domains of a VCF integration registered in Operations' and explains where to find the integration_id, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the instruction that this skill does not list VCF integrations implies a prerequisite and limits usage appropriately.

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