list_zones

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists zones on the open board, but does not mention the default limit of 100 or whether results can be truncated, nor what happens if no board is open. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, focused sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without waste.

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 description is adequate for a simple list tool, mentioning the resource and key output fields, but lacks context about the limit parameter and usage scenarios; with no output schema, the return format is only partially implied.

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?

The input schema has a single 'limit' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not mention it, so the agent receives no explanation of how the limit works or its default value. The description fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'copper zones on the open board,' also noting the returned attributes 'nets and layers.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks_vias.

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?

No usage guidance is provided; the description does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_tracks_vias or list_nets, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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