get_zaraz_config

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly, auth requirements, error behavior, or what the returned configuration contains. The verb 'Get' only implies non-mutation; no behavioral detail is disclosed.

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?

One seven-word sentence with zero filler and verb-first structure. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter getter, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and contextual detail.

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?

Adequate for a very simple one-param read, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no indication of what a Zaraz config contains, an agent cannot anticipate the response shape or any special access needs. For a niche resource some orientation would materially help.

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%—the sole parameter zone_id already has type, length, and a description in the schema. The description's 'for a zone' merely echoes that parameter and adds no format, scope, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') with a named resource ('Zaraz configuration') scoped to a zone, which is clear on its face. It distinguishes from sibling config getters like get_mnm_config or get_api_shield_config by naming the unique Zaraz resource. However, it never explains what Zaraz is or what the configuration contains, so an agent unfamiliar with the feature gets no orientation beyond the tool name.

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 about when to call this tool versus other configuration getters in the sibling list, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name 'Zaraz'.

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