bind_show_zone

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

The '[READ]' prefix merely restates the supplied readOnlyHint=true, which earns no credit. The one piece of real context is 'when enabled', implying the zone must be dynamic and active, but the description never says what happens if it is not (error, empty result, or fallback), nor anything about permissions or output shape. With annotations covering only safety, this is a thin disclosure.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the read tag plus purpose are stated immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than tightness.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description leaves key gaps: what 'target' selects, what the returned configuration looks like, and the failure mode when the zone is not a running dynamic zone.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely fails: 'zone' is only indirectly referenced, and the optional 'target' parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving its meaning (server/view/target instance?) entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a running dynamic zone's configuration'), which is enough to distinguish it from status/diagnostic siblings such as bind_zone_status or bind_dnssec_zone_status. It stops short of 5 because 'dynamic zone' and 'when enabled' are BIND-specific conditions that are not explained, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over the many sibling zone-inspection tools (bind_zone_status, bind_serve_stale_status, bind_compare_soa, etc.), and no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage cue is the trailing 'when enabled', which hints at a precondition but never states what to do otherwise.

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