zones_get_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a read operation returning state and attributes, which is consistent with the name. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., if entity_id is invalid) or permission requirements. The description is truthful but minimal.

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?

One sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and immediately conveys the core purpose. Slight improvement could be made by splitting into two sentences or adding structure, but it remains clear and concise.

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 presence of an output schema (from context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits guidance on usage scenarios and parameter context, making it less complete for an agent that needs to decide when to invoke this tool. Adequate for a simple get operation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'entity_id' parameter (e.g., format, where to find valid IDs, or the meaning of the parameter). While the single-parameter pattern is common, the description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a single zone entity') with additional detail about what it returns ('full state + attributes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zones_list_zones (which lists all zones) and zones_get_user_location (which gets user's zone).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zones_list_zones for all zones, or other retrieval tools). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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