get_trust_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning markdown-formatted output, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found) or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool.

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 short but redundant: 'Get details about a specific trust zone' is restated as 'This tool retrieves details about a specific trust zone in the system architecture.' This repetition wastes a sentence. The Args and Returns sections provide useful structural clarity, but the redundancy and undocumented 'ctx' parameter detract from the overall conciseness.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the essentials: what it does and what it returns. However, it does not address error scenarios (e.g., missing or invalid ID) or confirm the read-only nature, and the output schema is not visible to validate the return description. The tool is simple enough that this is acceptable, but it could be more complete with a note on not modifying state.

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 schema already documents the only parameter 'id' with the exact description 'ID of the trust zone to retrieve', and the description repeats this without adding new meaning. The mention of 'ctx' in the Args section is confusing because it is not present in the input schema, potentially misleading the agent into thinking it is a required or available parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 first sentence 'Get details about a specific trust zone' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (trust zone), with 'specific' differentiating it from listing all trust zones. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_trust_zones, add_trust_zone, update_trust_zone, and delete_trust_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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_trust_zones for enumeration or update_trust_zone for modifications. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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