list_trust_zones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a markdown-formatted list and supports an optional filter, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, ordering, or error behavior. For a read-only list operation, the description provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections. There is minor redundancy ('List all trust zones' is repeated in the first two sentences), but this does not significantly impair clarity.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the return format (markdown list) and the filter option, which is sufficient for a basic list tool. Minor missing details like empty-list behavior are not critical.

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% and the parameter trust_level is already well-documented in the schema. The description only repeats the schema's parameter description ('Optional trust level to filter zones') without adding additional context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's action ('List all trust zones') and resource ('trust zones'), making it specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_trust_boundaries or list_data_stores by explicitly naming trust zones.

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 usage for listing trust zones but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_trust_zone for a single zone or list_trust_boundaries for boundaries). There are no exclusions or explicit 'use this when' statements, but the purpose is clear enough.

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