list_dnssec_zsk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, multi-signer enablement prerequisites, pagination, or whether the key set can be empty. The 'multi-signer' hint is the only added context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence, 'Returns the ZSK records,' largely restates the first and adds little value.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus a scope hint. It still omits pagination behavior, auth needs, and the precondition that multi-signer DNSSEC is configured, leaving real gaps.

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 100% for the single zone_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: lists DNSSEC Zone Signing Keys for a Cloudflare zone, and the parenthetical 'multi-signer DNSSEC' narrows the scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from DNSSEC-adjacent siblings such as get_dnssec.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that multi-signer DNSSEC must be enabled), and names no alternative such as get_dnssec. The agent is left to infer everything about selection.

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