zia_get_atp_settings

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

The description does not add behavioral traits beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds no further context about side effects or limitations, so it's adequate but not enhanced.

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 clear sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently states the tool's purpose.

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 read-only tool with no parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention what the return value contains, which could be helpful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters (empty schema), and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics, but since no parameters exist, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 specific resource 'ZIA tenant-wide ATP policy block'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'zia_get_atp_security_exceptions' which gets exceptions, not the policy block.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of many sibling tools like 'zia_get_atp_security_exceptions' and 'zia_get_malware_settings', explicit usage context is missing.

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