zdx_list_software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only status. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing the row semantics, returned fields, filter dimensions, and the software_key handoff to the details tool. It does not disclose pagination or response limits, but for a read-only list operation the provided context is solid and consistent with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and output shape, read-only plus filter dimensions, and the downstream usage hint. Information is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. No filler or 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what is listed, the row shape, available filters, and how to continue to details. The query parameter's extensive schema description handles the trickiest part. Missing details like pagination, result limits, or count semantics would improve completeness, but the current text gives an agent enough to invoke the tool successfully.

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 17%: the query parameter has a rich description, but the five ID filter parameters (geo_id, user_ids, device_ids, location_id, department_id) have no schema descriptions. The description compensates partially by stating 'Filter by location/department/geo/user/device', which maps naturally to those parameters. However, it does not explain array semantics, how filters combine, or the meaning of the IDs, leaving an agent to infer much from parameter names.

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 opens with specific verb+resource: 'List the ZDX software inventory.' It clearly states the output granularity ('one row per software title') and the fields returned (key, name, vendor, version, install/user counts), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like zdx_list_devices and zdx_list_locations. It also explicitly names the companion tool zdx_get_software_details.

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 provides clear usage context: it is a read-only inventory listing tool, and it lists the available filter dimensions (location/department/geo/user/device). It also gives explicit downstream guidance to use a returned software_key with zdx_get_software_details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative list tools for comparison, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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