dns_list_zones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that the tool lists zones and returns specific fields, which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention any side effects, permission requirements, pagination, or output format beyond the field names. It adds some value but leaves behavioral details unstated.

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 that front-loads the purpose and then lists the return fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless list tool.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No additional context is needed.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The 100% schema coverage (empty) is sufficient, and the description adds no parameter-related info. 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('DNS zones'), and clarifies the scope ('all zones configured on the server'). It also specifies the returned fields (name, type, status, record count), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dns_list_records or dns_get_stats.

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 the tool—when you need an overview of all DNS zones—but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks statements like 'for records within a zone, use dns_list_records', so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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