Get Zone Settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this by naming the returned setting types (SSL mode, security level, minification, always-https, brotli) and the 'Get' verb implies a non-mutating operation. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior, but this is a simple read-only getter.

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 concise sentences with the action and resource front-loaded. The enumeration of return values is useful and there is no filler or redundant text.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, an output schema covers the exact return structure, and the parameter is straightforward. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description needs to add meaning for the zone_id parameter, but it does not. The parameter name is self-explanatory, yet the description provides no detail about how zone_id should be supplied or what identifying a zone entails.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('security and performance settings for a zone') and enumerates representative settings. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_dns_record, purge_cache, and even get_zone.

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 implies use when you need a zone's security/performance settings, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over get_zone or other siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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