List SDN zones

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the list of zone types, providing useful context about what will be listed. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error handling. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not extensive.

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 with a parenthetical list. It is extremely concise with no wasted words. Every part (verb, noun, type list) serves a purpose.

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 list tool with no parameters and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It tells what is listed and hints at the types. There is no output schema, but the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the result. Minor gap: no details on output fields beyond types, but acceptable given simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully describes the interface. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing the zone types that can appear, giving users a hint about the output content. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and this description meets that.

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 'List SDN zones' which is a specific verb and resource. It adds the list of zone types (vxlan, evpn, simple, qinq, vlan) which further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like create_sdn_zone or get_sdn_zone.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are related list tools (list_sdn_subnets, list_sdn_vnets, etc.) but no explicit context on when to choose this one. No prerequisites or contraindications are mentioned.

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