list_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. 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, but the description says nothing about whether zones are reported as stored vs. filled, whether it reflects unsaved edits, or the volume/scope of results. With an output schema present, the return-shape burden is lifted, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb and the three zone categories. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of any disambiguation from the numerous other list_* siblings, which would be cheap to add.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no misleading parameter hints.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (zones), and even enumerates the zone kinds returned: copper zones, rule areas, and graphic zones. It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like add_zone and refill_zones, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby readers such as list_shapes or list_tracks.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites are stated. With many sibling list_* tools (list_tracks, list_vias, list_shapes, list_dimensions), the description never tells the agent which one to reach for when inspecting board geometry.

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