list_all_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing all zones across types) but does not state whether archived zones are included, the default ordering, or whether pagination is fully supported. It adds minimal context beyond what the schema already provides for limit/offset.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose without any waste or extraneous detail.

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 list operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could benefit from clarifying whether archived zones are included, since sibling tools like list_archived_zones exist.

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% for both limit and offset, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema states (default limit, pagination offset).

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'zones', and specifies the full scope across all types (standard, email, catalog). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_zones, list_email_zones, and list_catalog_zones, which are type-specific.

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 phrase 'across all types' implies this is the aggregate tool and that type-specific tools exist for narrower queries. However, it does not explicitly say 'use list_zones for standard zones only' or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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