zia_get_atp_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only' (consistent but not additive). However, it adds behavioral context about the workflow (merging partial updates) and the support for JMESPath filtering, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions or missing side effects are present.

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 three sentences: the first packs many knobs (maybe excessive but comprehensive), the second gives key usage guidance, the third states read-only and JMESPath. It is front-loaded and structured logically. Could be slightly tighter, but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('full policy settings block') and notes client-side filtering. It also provides essential workflow context (call before update). For a simple read operation, this is complete and actionable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining that the 'query' parameter supports JMESPath client-side filtering, which is not evident from the schema alone. The 'service' parameter is defaulted to 'zia' and self-explanatory, so no further clarification needed.

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 retrieves 'the full ZIA Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) policy settings block' and lists numerous specific security controls (C2 blocking, malware, phishing, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the companion update tool and specifying it covers ATP settings, not other ZIA features.

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 explicit guidance: 'Always call this before zia_update_atp_settings so partial updates can be merged onto the existing payload (the update is PUT-replace).' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before update) and why, establishing a clear workflow. It also notes the JMESPath filtering capability and read-only nature.

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