ztna_connector_version

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's [READ] tag is redundant. It does add the useful scoping detail that the result is tenant-wide and 'latest' (not historical), but says nothing about whether a version may be absent or what shape the payload takes.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted wording. The bracketed [READ] prefix is redundant with the annotation but costs little.

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 zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should clarify what 'version' means (a version string, a list of connector platform versions, or rollout status). As written, the agent cannot predict the return value.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is complete and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 names a specific resource ('tenant latest connector version') and a clear read verb, so an agent knows this returns version information rather than connector instances. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbors like ztna_connectors or ztna_connector_metrics, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ztna_connectors (which lists connectors) or ztna_connector (which details one). The agent must infer that this is the version-lookup call 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.