technitium_zones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the dual listing behavior (zones vs records), a genuine trait beyond the schema, but says nothing about auth, limits, or output shape; the latter is partly excused by the existing output schema.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the conditional behavior. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are present. The main gap is the absence of any routing to the records sibling or note about name formatting, both minor for this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the functional effect of supplying "zone" (switching the listing target). It does not give the expected name format or whether the value must match an existing zone exactly.

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 and resource ("List DNS zones") and clarifies the alternate mode when a zone is supplied. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling technitium_records, though it never names an alternative tool to make the routing explicit.

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?

"Give a zone name to list its records instead" tells the agent the condition under which behavior changes, which is effectively when-to-use-the-param guidance. It stops short of naming technitium_records or stating exclusions relative to other siblings.

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