get_api_shield_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only retrieval, and 'configuration' suggests the response contains settings. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, response shape, or permissions, though these are less critical for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence: action first, then resource, then scope. It is appropriately brief for such a simple tool, though it does not use its space to add sibling differentiation or behavioral nuance.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: it names the resource and the scope. However, it does not describe what the configuration contains or how it differs from similar API Shield/API Gateway config tools, leaving some ambiguity for tool selection.

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 schema already documents the only parameter, zone_id, with 100% coverage. The description adds only generic zone context and no additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get API Shield configuration' with a zone scope. It is clear and unambiguous about the operation, but it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like get_api_gateway_config or get_api_gateway_settings, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a zone' only restates what the zone_id parameter already implies, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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