get_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds that it returns 'live state', indicating real-time data (consistent with openWorldHint), and details the return content (configuration and state). No contradictions or omissions.

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: a one-line summary, a list of returned fields, and parameter explanations. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return content. No missing critical information.

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 covers 0% of parameter descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining zone_id as a UUID from list_zones and force_imperial's effect on unit system (imperial vs metric). This provides complete semantics.

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 tool retrieves full zone detail and live state for a single zone, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_zones (list all zones) or get_device (device info). The verb 'Get' and resource 'zone' are specific, and the listed fields (soil, nozzle, crop/plant, etc.) provide concrete detail.

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 implies usage context by noting zone_id comes from list_zones, guiding the agent to first list zones. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use it, but the hint is clear enough for an AI agent.

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