list_firewall_zones_proxy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals pagination mode, default page size, the auto-drain behavior, the return shape {data, totalCount}, the manual single-page mode, and the incomplete cap flag. This is unusually transparent.

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 compact and information-dense. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter clarification and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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 simple 4-parameter schema, the description fully covers required identifiers, optional pagination parameters, return shape, and edge-case behavior. The capped-drain incomplete flag is a useful detail that prevents an agent from silently trusting truncated results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: host is documented as console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format; site as name or ID; and offset/limit are explained in the pagination context. It could add value by specifying constraints like minimum offset or maximum limit, but the provided semantics are sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all firewall zones for a site via connector proxy.' It also clarifies the scope ('all') and the proxy context, which clearly distinguishes it from the singular get/update/delete firewall-zone sibling tools.

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 clear operational guidance: by default every page is drained and the complete list is returned, while passing offset or limit requests a single manual page. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use get_firewall_zone_proxy for a single zone,' but the intended usage is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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