get_zpa_isolation_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with '(read-only)'. The description adds the behavior of exact-name filtering and the optional query parameter's client-side filtering behavior, including a warning about field name casing. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it does not detail pagination or response structure.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, then adds the filtering option and read-only note. It is concise with no wasted words, and the schema's query parameter description is detailed but appropriately placed in the schema rather than the tool description.

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 (list/filter profiles), the description is complete enough. It covers the main use case, the read-only nature, and the filtering behavior. The query parameter's detailed schema description handles the complex filtering logic. No output schema exists, but the description implies the return of profile records, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'name' parameter has no description, but the tool description explains it filters by exact name. The 'query' parameter has a rich description in the schema, and the tool description adds context about its purpose. The description compensates for the missing 'name' parameter documentation, so the agent understands both parameters' semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists ZPA Cloud Browser Isolation (CBI) profiles and can filter by exact name, explicitly noting it is read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zpa_list_isolation_policy_rules and get_zpa_isolation_policy_rule, which deal with policy rules rather than profiles.

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 implies usage: list all profiles or filter by exact name. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the read-only nature and the specific resource (CBI profiles) provide clear context. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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