zia_get_atp_malware_protocols

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, reducing the description's burden. The description adds useful contextual detail about the exact resource returned, but it does not disclose anything further such as output format, default values, or response behavior. 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, compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and the resource scope clearly parenthesized. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, zero-parameter getter with read-only annotations and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It clearly names the target resource. It could add detail about returned toggle states, but the low complexity and read-only nature make this sufficient in most contexts.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers the argument surface. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the resource obtained rather than argument details.

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 explicitly uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the specific resource: 'ZIA malware protocol toggles (HTTP/FTP)'. It clearly indicates what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling getters such as zia_get_atp_malware_policy or zia_get_atp_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The name and resource imply the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing.

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