get_secondary_dns_primary

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' correctly implies a read-only retrieval and the object 'configuration' indicates what is returned, but it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or what happens if no primary nameserver is configured. It is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core resource and scope are stated immediately.

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, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the exact resource and the required input context. It does not describe the return shape, but this is partially mitigated by the clear resource name and the low complexity of the operation.

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%, and the zone_id parameter is already fully described as 'The zone ID'. The description adds only the generic phrase 'for a zone', which does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('secondary DNS primary nameserver configuration'), and a scope ('for a zone'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_secondary_dns_incoming, get_secondary_dns_outgoing, and list_secondary_dns_* tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many related secondary DNS tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. An agent must infer from the name and resource phrase that this is for retrieving a zone's primary nameserver configuration.

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