liara_get_zone

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. It states 'Get details,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like no side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get details of a DNS zone.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., specifying what 'details' include). Overall, it's well-structured but minimal.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., zone configuration, status), potential errors, or how this fits into broader DNS management workflows. For a tool with no structured output information, more descriptive context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'zoneId' clearly documented as 'The zone ID.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't explain what a zone ID is, how to obtain it (e.g., from 'liara_list_zones'), or format examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Get details of a DNS zone' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('DNS zone'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague—'details' is not specific about what information is retrieved (e.g., configuration, records, status). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'liara_get_dns_record' or 'liara_list_zones', which are related DNS operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a zone ID from 'liara_list_zones'), compare to 'liara_get_dns_record' for record-level details, or specify use cases like troubleshooting or configuration review. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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