list_zones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read/list operation, which is inferable but never stated explicitly. It doesn't describe output format, pagination, or whether an empty/invalid state returns all zones or an error. With zero annotations, more could be disclosed, but the nature is fairly benign.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Efficient and easy to scan. Could be slightly more descriptive without bloating, but overall tight and well-structured.

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 and a single optional param, this is a simple tool. The description covers the core purpose and the key parameter adequately. However, it's missing the default-when-no-state behavior and doesn't confirm whether all zones are returned when no filter is applied—small but relevant gaps for a lookup tool.

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% (no param descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does explain the `state` parameter with example codes (SGR, JHR, WLY), which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't mention the default behavior (whether null returns all zones) or accepted code format beyond the three examples.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List JAKIM prayer zone codes') with a specific description scope ('with area descriptions'). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like get_prayer_times_today/month, as it's the only zone-list tool. Doesn't explicitly differentiate but purpose is specific enough.

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 notes the optional state filter, implying it's used for filtering/list operations. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, or when the state filter is needed vs. listing all zones. The state codes (SGR, JHR, WLY) context is helpful but usage boundaries are left implicit.

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