list_fleet_domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is low, yet the description adds real operational context beyond them: the paginated envelope shape, the configuration_state enum with the warning that 'removed' is not live, the 404 meaning, and the critical gotcha that a 'note' field plus empty items means UNKNOWN rather than 'no domains'. That last item prevents a severe false negative in agent reporting.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and one-line purpose, then layered detail. Dense and mostly earned, though the integration_id provenance is stated twice ('UUID shown under Administration -> Integrations -> VCF' and 'copy the exact UUID from the Operations Integrations page'), a mild redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return burden, enumerating the domain summary fields (id, name, type, status, configuration_state) and the wrapping envelope. Combined with error semantics and the unrecognised-shape gotcha, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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, but the description meaningfully enriches integration_id: it is the UUID found under Administration -> Integrations -> VCF, supplied by the operator, with a 404 signifying a wrong value and instructions to copy the exact UUID. Limit/pagination behavior is also implied via the envelope. It adds value over the schema without fully documenting the 'target' parameter's role.

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 (List) and precise resource (SDDC/workload domains behind one registered VCF integration). The 'behind one registered VCF integration' scope cleanly separates it from sibling fleet tools like list_fleet_certificates and list_fleet_password_accounts without needing to open any schema.

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?

'Use this to enumerate the domains of a VCF integration registered in Operations' gives a clear triggering context, and the parenthetical '(this skill does not list VCF integrations)' tells the agent this is not where integration discovery happens. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative to call first, so it's clear but not fully routing.

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