unifi_list_firewall_zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (id, name, networkIds[], metadata.origin) and the distinction between system-defined vs user-defined zones, with no contradictions.

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 composed of three efficient sentences that front-load the core action and provide necessary context without redundancy or extraneous information.

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, presence of an output schema, and complete annotations, the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and cross-reference to related tools, making it complete for its use case.

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%, so the description is not required to add parameter details. The description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists firewall zones and defines them as 'groupings of networks for zone-based firewalling', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_get_firewall_zone and unifi_list_firewall_policies.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool for zone inventory and pairing it with unifi_list_firewall_policies, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives beyond the pairing.

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