zia_get_atp_malware_policy

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by clarifying that the policy content is file-handling toggles, but it does not describe the return value shape, format, or any other behavioral details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place by stating both the operation and the specific policy scope.

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 an explicit scope, the description is essentially complete. It does not describe the output schema or return formatting, but given the tool's simplicity and the readOnly annotation, the context is sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed here.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get the ZIA malware policy (file-handling toggles).' It identifies the target and narrows the scope to file-handling toggles, which helps differentiate it from related ATP malware getters. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as zia_get_atp_malware_inspection, zia_get_atp_malware_protocols, or zia_get_malware_settings. The 'file-handling toggles' phrase implies a specific scope, but the description does not explain when an agent should choose this tool over related getters.

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