zones_get_zone

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

The description discloses that the tool returns 'full state + attributes', implying a read-only operation. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any authentication needs or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Every word is meaningful, with no superfluous content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. However, it could mention error handling (e.g., if entity_id is invalid) or prerequisites (e.g., zone must exist), which 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 only parameter, 'entity_id', has no description in the schema (coverage 0%), and the tool description does not provide any additional context about its format, source, or required pattern. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Get a single zone entity') and what it returns ('full state + attributes'), making it distinct from sibling tools like zones_list_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_zones for multiple zones, update_zone for modifications). The usage context is only implied by the name.

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