list_api_shield_schemas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden; 'List' itself signals a read-only retrieval with no side effects. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or any product-specific nuance, so it only partially meets that burden.

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 contains the verb, resource, and scope with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description plus schema is sufficient to construct a correct invocation with zone_id. It is less complete in helping an agent disambiguate from other schema list endpoints or anticipate the return format, especially since there is no output schema or annotations.

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 100% and zone_id is already fully described by the input schema. The description's 'for a zone' restates the same scope without adding semantics such as formats, constraints, or related filtering options.

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 ('List'), a resource ('API Shield schemas'), and a scope ('for a zone'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate this from similarly named siblings such as list_api_schemas or list_api_gateway_schemas, which prevents a 5.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over the many nearby schema-listing tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisite context. The only implicit hint is that the operation is scoped to a zone.

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