list_firewall_zones

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds conceptual context (zone purpose) but no behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first says what it does, second and third provide essential 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?

For a simple list with no output schema, the description provides domain context (zones, policy enforcement). However, it does not hint at typical return fields (e.g., zone name, members). Minor gap.

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?

No parameters (0 param count, 100% schema coverage). Description adds meaning by explaining the role of zones in network segmentation, which helps understand the output. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all firewall zones' and explains zones group interfaces for policy enforcement. It distinguishes from siblings like list_firewall_policies by focusing on zone objects, but does not explicitly differentiate from manage_firewall_zone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when to list vs. manage zones or policies. Usage is implied only from the name.

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