zcc_list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds value by enumerating the fields included per row (identity, OS, agent version, etc.) and the udid relationship, which helps the agent understand the response shape.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose stated first, followed by row content details. Every sentence adds information without 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?

The description covers the response contents well but omits pagination details, filter semantics, and any note about the query parameter. Given the tool's 5 optional parameters and missing output schema, there are notable gaps, though the read-only annotation and field list provide a solid baseline.

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 only 20%, with only the query parameter documented. The tool description provides no additional explanation for page, page_size, os_type, or username, leaving the agent to infer their meanings from parameter names alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'ZCC enrolled devices', and explicitly marks it read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zdx_list_devices and zia_list_devices.

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 gives clear context about what records are returned and points to a specific downstream use (zcc_get_device_otp). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, though the ZCC prefix and content differentiate it.

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