zia_get_cloud_app_control_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds the scoping detail that lookup is by category + ID, which is genuine beyond-annotation context. However, it doesn't explain not-found behavior, response shape, or what 'category' values are valid. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the bar was lower, and the description meets it without adding much beyond the lookup-key disclosure.

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?

Exactly one sentence, eleven words, with the verb up front and every word earning its place. Zero redundancy, no 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 2-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool with strong annotations, the description is close to sufficient. It conveys the tool's purpose and lookup mechanism adequately. Minor gaps: no valid rule_type value enumeration and no output expectations, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint. Sibling differentiation is handled adequately by the consistent get-/list- naming convention.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries full burden, and it does add value by mapping 'category' to rule_type and ID to rule_id — semantics the bare schema ('Rule Type', 'Rule Id') lacks. However, it fails to compensate fully: there are no valid value examples or enum guidance for rule_type, which an agent would need to call this correctly for the first time. Partial compensation for a real gap.

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+resource pattern: 'Get a single ZIA Cloud App Control rule' with the scope 'by category + ID'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many list tools and other get_*_rule siblings by naming the specific resource and lookup keys. It loses a point because 'category' doesn't map literally to a parameter name (rule_type), though it's inferable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zia_list_cloud_app_control_rules or other get_*_rule tools. The get-vs-list distinction is a convention visible in sibling names, but the description itself provides no when-to-use / when-not-to-use context, exclusions, or alternative tool references. The 'Get a single...' phrasing implies the contrast with listing, but nothing explicit.

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