list_transport_zones

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds 'No side effects', explains return format (dicts with id, display_name, transport_type), typical size (under 20), no pagination, and error format. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear lead line, behavioral details, use case, return format, and parameter section. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While detailed, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (context signals), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, no side effects, return format, typical size, pagination behavior, error handling, and parameter details. It is fully complete for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has one optional parameter 'target' with anyOf string|null. Description explains it as the NSX Manager name from config.yaml and notes the default target is used if omitted. This adds context beyond the schema, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it lists NSX transport zones and explains their purpose as overlay/VLAN boundaries. It ties directly to create_segment usage, distinguishing itself from sibling list tools that list different resources (e.g., segments, edge clusters). The verb 'list' and resource 'transport zones' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the primary use: to discover the transport zone needed by create_segment, including the path format. It also notes no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving some implicit guidance.

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