list_secondary_dns_tsigs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only enumeration, but nothing else is disclosed: no pagination behavior, no response format, and no mention that secondary DNS must be configured for the account. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a noticeable gap.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with the verb front-loaded; every word earns its place. There is no filler, redundancy, or buried context.

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?

The tool is simple (one documented parameter, no nested objects or enums), and the account-scoped listing intent is clear enough for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without any hint of the return shape, pagination, or prerequisites (e.g., secondary DNS being enabled), and no sibling differentiation is offered. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the single account_id parameter fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'for an account' modestly reinforces that the listing is scoped to the account_id parameter, but it adds no format, constraint, or behavior details beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('secondary DNS TSIG keys'), and a scope ('for an account'), making the action unambiguous. It is naturally distinguishable from nearby siblings like list_secondary_dns_peers and list_secondary_dns_acls because it names the exact resource type, though it does not explicitly call out an alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention the closely related siblings — get_secondary_dns_tsig for a single key, or list_secondary_dns_peers and list_secondary_dns_acls for other secondary DNS resources — so an agent gets no help choosing among the secondary DNS cluster tools. Context must be inferred entirely from naming conventions.

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