list_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read operation, and 'standard' indicates a scope limitation, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, response shape, or whether any hidden filtering applies. This is minimal but not misleading.

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?

'List all standard zones' is a single, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and the brevity is appropriate for a simple listing operation.

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 low-complexity list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, it leaves ambiguity about what 'standard' excludes and what the response contains. It is not as complete as descriptions that explicitly name alternatives or define scope boundaries.

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 input schema covers both limit and offset with descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage, so the description adds no parameter-level value. The word 'all' implies pagination, but the schema already documents limit/offset, keeping this at baseline.

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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'zones' with the qualifier 'standard', which helps distinguish it from sibling variants like list_archived_zones, list_email_zones, vast_list_zones, and list_all_zones. However, 'standard' is not defined, and the distinction from list_all_zones remains somewhat ambiguous, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling zone-listing tools, such as list_all_zones, list_archived_zones, or vast_list_zones. The description does not state exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage 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.