List RRSets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe, and the description adds that the output includes records, TTLs, and protection status, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention pagination defaults or rate limits, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler, including a clarifying parenthetical for the acronym. It is front-loaded and 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?

The description, combined with full schema parameter descriptions and the readOnlyHint, provides enough context for a list operation. It identifies the scope (zone), output contents, and the schema covers filtering/pagination, making it reasonably complete without an output schema.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions covering their meaning (name filter, type filter, page, per_page, zone, label_selector), so the description adds no parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 applies due to 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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'RRSets of a zone', clearly distinguishing it from single-RRset tools like get_rrset and mutation tools. It also states what is included (records, TTLs, protection status), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 clearly implies this is for listing all RRSets in a zone, which differentiates it from get_rrset for individual sets. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or state exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternative naming.

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