cdn_list_cdn_zones

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 only states the action and a vague return type, without mentioning pagination, filtering, rate limits, or the scope of 'all' (e.g., account-wide vs. project-specific). This is minimal disclosure for a listing operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and there is no wasted wording. It achieves maximum conciseness for the information it conveys.

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 exists (which handles return structure), the description's brevity is somewhat acceptable. However, it lacks important context about the scope of the list (e.g., does it include zones across all projects or only the current context?). Without such clarifications, the agent might make incorrect assumptions, so it is only minimally complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and it does not introduce any ambiguity.

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 clearly states the action (List) and resource (CDN zones), and the word 'all' differentiates it from cdn_get_cdn_zone which retrieves a specific zone. An agent can immediately understand it returns the full collection.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like cdn_get_cdn_zone or cdn_get_cdn_zone_summary. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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