zia_get_atp_malware_inspection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the resource (traffic-direction toggles) but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, or error handling. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and scope. There is no redundancy or wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear.

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 zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what it retrieves (malware inspection traffic-direction toggles). It does not describe return value structure, but that is not necessarily required given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly avoids adding any parameter-specific details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('ZIA malware inspection'), with a parenthetical clarifying the specific aspect ('traffic-direction toggles'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zia_get_atp_malware_policy and zia_get_atp_malware_protocols by specifying the exact subset of malware inspection settings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when to call it. For a simple getter, this is a minor gap but still lacks explicit usage context.

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