zdx_list_software

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

The description states 'Read-only' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by describing the output format (one row per title, fields included) and filtering capabilities, going beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 compact at 4 sentences, starting with the core purpose, then stating read-only, then describing output and filters, and finally linking to a related tool. Every sentence is necessary and well-ordered.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the returned fields and filtering options. It also provides cross-reference to zdx_get_software_details, making the tool's role in a workflow clear. No gaps remain for this simple list operation.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with only query described (17% coverage). The description mentions filtering by location/department/geo/user/device but does not map these to specific parameter names or explain each parameter's usage. This adds some context but not full clarity.

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 ZDX software inventory and returns one row per software title with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool zdx_get_software_details by mentioning how to use the returned software_key to get details, showing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states filters (location, department, geo, user, device) and provides guidance on using the software_key with zdx_get_software_details. While it does not explicitly say when not to use it, the context is clear and practical.

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