Get Zone

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), and the description adds value beyond them: it explains that YAML-defined zones (including the auto-synthesized 'home' zone) only appear when the ha_mcp_tools custom component is installed, and that such zones are marked editable=false / source="yaml" while UI/API zones are source="storage". That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the two operating modes and examples before the longer footnote about the custom component. The YAML/storage paragraph is dense but each clause carries distinct information, so there is little waste aside from mild verbosity in that final block.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the remaining gaps: the two call modes, a concrete example for each, and the non-obvious condition under which zones go missing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 single zone_id parameter is well documented in the schema itself ('from ha_get_zone() list'). The description's explanation of the optional-parameter mode switch adds a little meaning, but the parameter-level semantics are already carried by the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get zone information') and immediately clarifies its dual behavior: list-all when no zone_id is supplied, detailed config when one is. This distinguishes it cleanly from the write-side siblings ha_set_zone and ha_remove_zone, and the read-only nature is unambiguous.

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 'Without a zone_id: ... With a zone_id: ...' structure plus two concrete call examples tells the agent exactly when to use each mode. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g. 'use ha_set_zone to modify'), so it is clear context rather than explicit routing, but the mode selection is fully specified.

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