get_dns_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the data comes from an authoritative server (pdns/view_zone), which is useful context. It does not disclose response format, pagination, or whether the zone must exist, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the resource ('Содержимое DNS-зоны') and lists record types. It is concise and informative, though it could be slightly more structured with a usage hint.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling DNS tools and does not mention error cases (e.g., nonexistent zone), but the annotations and schema cover the essential safety and parameter information.

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%: the only parameter 'zone' is described as 'Имя зоны, например example.com'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('DNS zone contents'), listing record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT) and the authoritative source (pdns/view_zone). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_dns_zones or get_ptr_record.

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: call it to retrieve all records in a DNS zone. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dns_zones (which likely lists zones) or get_ptr_record (which fetches a single PTR record). The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not stated.

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