timeweb_list_dns_records

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List DNS records for a domain' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, output format, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The agent gets no insight into side effects or expected behavior beyond the bare action.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it may be slightly too terse, lacking any additional context that could be included without sacrificing brevity.

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 simple list operation, the description gives the essential purpose but omits details about return values, pagination, or output formatting. Since no output schema or annotations exist, the description could have provided more context, but the schema covers parameter semantics. It is minimally complete for a straightforward list 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (fqdn, limit, format, offset), so the description adds little beyond that. The phrase 'for a domain' merely echoes the fqdn parameter, which is already documented. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list) and the resource (DNS records for a domain), making it easy to identify what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like timeweb_create_dns_record or timeweb_delete_dns_record, though the resource itself is unique enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where a different tool might be more appropriate, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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