get_zpa_app_protection_profile

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

The description repeats the read-only nature already indicated by the annotation (readOnlyHint: true). Beyond that, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as whether omitting the 'name' parameter returns all profiles or what authentication requirements exist. The description does not contradict annotations, but it adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, the word 'Manage' is imprecise for a read-only retrieval tool, and the sentence could be restructured to be more direct. It is not wasteful but could be improved.

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 presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens when 'name' is omitted (returns all profiles?), nor does it differentiate between this profile tool and related rule tools (e.g., 'zpa_get_app_protection_rule'). The description lacks sufficient context for effective use.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description only ties the 'action' parameter to 'read-only', which is already explicit in the schema description ('Must be 'read''). No additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it manages 'ZPA App Protection Profiles (Inspection Profiles)' and is read-only. The verb 'Manage' is slightly vague for a read operation, but the read-only qualifier and the tool name 'get_zpa_app_protection_profile' clarify that its purpose is retrieval. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'zpa_get_app_protection_rule' by targeting profiles instead of rules.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'zpa_list_app_protection_rules' and other 'get_zpa_*' tools, but there is no list endpoint for profiles, suggesting this tool might also list profiles when 'name' is omitted. However, the description does not clarify this distinction or provide any usage context.

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