list_zones

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It describes the output (zones with ids and member lights) and distinguishes from rooms, but does not mention any behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or permissions. However, the tool appears to be a read-only list operation, so the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and important fields; the second provides a clarifying distinction from rooms. No unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (grouped_light_id and member lights), its relationship to set_group, and how zones differ from rooms. No aspect is missing for a simple list 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?

No parameters exist (input schema is empty). Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, and its focus on output and usage is sufficient. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the tool lists zones with grouped_light_id and member lights, and explicitly distinguishes zones from rooms, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_rooms.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (e.g., to get grouped_light_id for set_group, or to view member lights). Includes comparison with rooms to guide tool selection, though no explicit when-not-to-use.

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