vast_get_archived_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'get' (implying read-only) but does not describe what 'details' includes, how errors are handled (e.g., non-existent or non-archived zones), or any limitations. This is minimal beyond the name.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks context to disambiguate it from closely related sibling tools like 'get_archived_zone' (without VAST) and 'vast_get_zone' (non-archived). It also doesn't mention return value structure, though no output schema exists. The core purpose is clear, but completeness is limited given the sibling ambiguity.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for the 'id' parameter ('Archived VAST zone ID'). The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 details') and the target resource ('a specific archived VAST zone'). It distinguishes itself from 'vast_list_archived_zones' (list vs. specific) and 'vast_get_zone' (archived vs. active) through the inclusion of 'archived' and 'VAST'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'vast_get_zone', 'vast_list_archived_zones', or 'get_archived_zone'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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