zdx_list_alert_affected_devices

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.' It adds value by stating the output format ('one identifying row per affected device') and available filters, going beyond annotations. No pagination or rate limiting info, but sufficient for a read operation.

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 very concise: four short sentences with no superfluous content. The key action and read-only nature are front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output format, and filter options. It misses pagination behavior and details about the 'identifying row' content. Overall, it provides enough context for effective use alongside sibling tools.

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 low (11%), but the description explains five key filter parameters (location_id, department_id, geo_id, location_groups, since) that correspond to the listed filters. It adds meaning beyond the schema for these. However, it omits pagination parameters (limit, offset) and the query parameter, which is documented in the schema.

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 devices affected by a ZDX alert, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zdx_list_devices (which lists all devices) by specifying the alert filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 when you have an alert and need affected devices, and lists filter options (location, department, geo, location groups, since). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or references to alternative tools, such as zdx_get_alert for alert details.

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