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, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent. The description adds useful interpretive context by noting that metadata.origin distinguishes system-defined vs user-defined zones, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or other runtime behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the action, then define the return fields and the primary use case. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of schema details.

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 list operation with 100% schema parameter coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it gives purpose, scope, return-field semantics, and a related tool. The only moderate gap is not describing pagination/default behavior in prose, though the parameter descriptions already cover limit and offset.

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 description coverage is 100%, with limit, filter, offset, and siteId each already described. The description only reinforces the site-level scope and return fields; it adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific action and resource ('List firewall zones') with a clear scope ('at a site') and defines what firewall zones are ('groupings of networks for zone-based firewalling'). The summary of returned fields (id, name, networkIds[], metadata.origin) makes the list/inventory nature unmistakable and distinguishes it from the singular unifi_get_firewall_zone sibling.

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?

It gives an explicit intended use ('Use for: zone inventory') and points to a complementary tool ('pair with unifi_list_firewall_policies to see rules between zones'). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or when to prefer the singular getter, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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