zcell_list_anomaly_policy_logs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds value by detailing the return data (enable/disable/run history with status, message, timestamp), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction; behavior is well-disclosed.

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 extremely concise at two sentences (23 words), front-loading the purpose and key output. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 tool's core function and return type, but omits mention of pagination parameters (page/size) and the optional query parameter. Although no output schema exists, the description is adequate for understanding the main purpose but leaves gaps for advanced usage.

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 low at 25% (only query described). The description only mentions policy_id, ignoring page, size, and query parameters. It does not explain pagination or client-side filtering. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 action 'List' and the resource 'activity log for one Zscaler Cellular anomaly policy'. It specifies the scope (one policy via policy_id) and distinguishes from siblings like zcell_list_anomaly_policies (which lists policies) and zcell_list_anomaly_policy_violations (lists violations).

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 use when needing the enable/disable/run history of a specific policy, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Given naming, usage is clear but guidance is implicit.

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