zcc_list_forwarding_profiles

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

Description declares the tool as read-only, which is already hinted by readOnlyHint annotation, and mentions JMESPath filtering. It adds some value beyond annotations but does not detail other behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description covers the main purpose, filtering capability, and context. It does not explain the 'By Company ID' aspect, but this is likely contextual from authentication.

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 of parameters is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the JMESPath mention in description is redundant with the 'query' parameter's schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the list of Forwarding Profiles by Company ID in the Client Connector Portal. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like zcc_list_devices or zcc_list_trusted_networks, leaving room for improvement.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only mentions JMESPath support, but does not explain prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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