bunny_list_shield_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds domain context by explaining what shield zones do, which is useful beyond the structured hints. No additional caveats (pagination, auth, rate limits) are necessary for a zero-parameter list operation.

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?

Two succinct sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds value by explaining what shield zones encompass, without any fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does and why it exists. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 ('List') and resource ('Bunny Shield security zones'), and further clarifies that each zone provides WAF, rate limiting, bot detection, and DDoS protection. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like bunny_get_shield_zone (which retrieves a single zone) and bunny_list_pull_zones (which lists pull zones).

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 purpose is self-evident: use this tool to list all shield zones. The description implies usage without explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention that a single-zone getter exists, but the simple list-all intent is clear enough for the agent.

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