bunny_get_storage_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but it does contribute useful context about the response payload (e.g., storage used, file count) which is not present in the schema. Given the annotations already handle the key behavior, this is adequate without being exceptional.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the key returned attributes. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place. It is an excellent model of conciseness.

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 compensates by itemizing the expected response fields (primary region, replication regions, connected pull zones, storage used, file count). This gives an agent a good sense of the data returned. It does not cover error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple get-by-ID operation, the essential information is provided. A score of 4 reflects strong completeness given the simplicity and existing annotations.

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 only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Storage Zone ID' with exclusiveMinimum 0, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any new details about the parameter itself, but it does indicate that the ID is used to retrieve a specific zone, which is implicit. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource ('storage zone details by ID'), and enumerates the key fields returned. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bunny_list_storage_zones (collective retrieval) and bunny_get_storage_zone_statistics (metrics) by focusing on a single entity's configuration and usage.

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 usage when you have a specific storage zone ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use bunny_list_storage_zones to enumerate zones'). The context is inferable from the tool name and description but not stated directly, so an agent might not be fully routed to the correct sibling.

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