timeweb_list_domains

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 states what the tool lists and does not explicitly disclose that it is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, or any response structure. The word 'list' implicitly suggests read-only, but that is not sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording: 'List all domains in the account.' Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with fully described optional parameters, the description provides the core purpose but omits any mention of pagination behavior, the meaning of 'all' relative to account scope, or what the returned data contains. Given no output schema, a bit more context on return values would improve completeness.

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 fully documents all three optional parameters (limit, format, offset) with types, ranges, and descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline is met because the schema already provides complete semantic information.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'domains' and scope 'in the account', making the operation unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like timeweb_get_domain (singular) and timeweb_list_dns_records (different resource).

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 implies its usage: to enumerate all domains. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like timeweb_get_domain for a single domain or timeweb_check_domain. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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