Cq Zones Source Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only metadata retrieval, but does not state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the SHA-256/URL info might change. It adds very little beyond naming fields. An output schema exists, so return structure is partly covered there, but behavior around the data is not.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is a noun phrase list that is somewhat dense and not front-loaded with a clear purpose verb. It is not wasteful, but the structure is less helpful than a brief 'Retrieve …' statement would be.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate to understand what is returned. However, it lacks any context about when this source info matters relative to the other cq_zones tools, which is important in a family of related tools. It is minimally complete but leaves usage context to inference.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed to fetch the source info, matching the empty schema. No additional parameter meaning is required.

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 what information is returned (owner, edition, terms, file URLs and SHA-256s) but does so as a noun-phrase list rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It is distinguishable from siblings like cq_zones_lookup or get_version_info only by inference; the name 'cq_zones_source_info' plus the listed contents suggest metadata about the zone list source. It is specific but not framed as an action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_version_info (which likely covers version/edition) or cq_zones_lookup. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit sibling differentiation.

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