Export zone file

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output format ('BIND format') and the 'full contents' scope, which informs the agent about what to expect beyond the annotation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and output format without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 the simple parameter set and readOnly annotation, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention error behavior or any limitations, but for an export operation with a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 the parameter 'zone' already has a clear description with an example. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail about parameters, so it falls at the baseline for high 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 a specific verb ('Export') with a clear resource ('DNS zone') and output format ('zone file (BIND format)'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like import_zonefile (the reverse) and get_zone (likely returns zone metadata, not full contents).

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need the full zone file contents), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_zone or list_zones. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so it's adequate but not fully guiding.

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