get_archived_zone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get details' indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose what fields are returned, error behavior for invalid IDs, or any other behavioral traits. This is adequate for a simple get-by-id 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description, combined with the informative name and schema, is reasonably complete. It identifies the resource uniquely, though it does not explain what details are returned.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'Archived zone ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'details of a specific archived standard zone', clearly distinguishing it from the VAST-specific sibling 'vast_get_archived_zone'. It states the resource and scope precisely.

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 usage is implied by the name and the word 'standard' to differentiate from VAST variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or contextual guidance. It is clear but not explicitly contrasted with list_archived_zones or vast_get_archived_zone.

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