list_zones

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about permissions, pagination, whether zones span all vdoms by default, or whether member interfaces are expanded inline. That is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing wasteful is included.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema, this is minimally adequate. It still leaves open the default scoping behavior of vdom and the shape of the returned zone/member data, which matter when no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented ('Virtual Domain', 'FortiGate device identifier'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how vdom defaults or whether omitting it returns all domains, leaving it at the baseline.

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 ('List interface zones') and adds scope ('their member interfaces'), which distinguishes it from list_interfaces. However, it never names or contrasts a sibling such as list_interfaces or discover_vdoms, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention that a device_id is required, and no indication of how the optional vdom scopes results. The agent gets no routing help between this and list_interfaces/get_interface_status.

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