zia_get_advanced_settings

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

The description adds the useful 'tenant-wide' scope context not fully captured by annotations, and the GET verb aligns with the readOnlyHint: true annotation. However, it doesn't disclose what settings are included (proxies, auth, timeouts?), performance impact of retrieving the entire settings object, or whether this returns the same data as the sibling variants. No contradiction with annotations, just limited added behavioral context.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence. No filler, no redundancy, every word pulls its weight. The description is as short as it can be while still adding the 'tenant-wide' qualifier, which elevates it beyond a pure tautology of the tool name.

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 the low complexity (0 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is essentially complete for its scope. It tells the agent what it retrieves and the scope of retrieval. It could enrich by explaining what a user-facing 'Advanced Settings' screen would show, but for the complexity level, this borders on over-specification. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

As a 0-parameter tool with an empty input schema, there's nothing to document. The 'tenant-wide' qualifier confirms scope but tells us nothing about inputs. Baseline 4 applies here; schema coverage is fully complete for the input domain, so no information is missing.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') + specific resource ('ZIA tenant-wide Advanced Settings object'). The 'tenant-wide' qualifier helpfully distinguishes this from the sibling `zia_get_mobile_advanced_settings`. However, 'Advanced Settings' is never elaborated on, leaving exactly what the object contains to the reader's imagination, but the scope is adequately disambiguated among a large ZIA family.

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With so many closely related getters (zia_get_mobile_advanced_settings, zia_get_atp_settings, zia_get_malware_settings), the lack of explicit 'use this for the main/global config' vs. sibling scopes forces an agent to guess. Nothing states when NOT to use it.

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