zia_get_cloud_firewall_ips_rule

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict that. The phrase 'with member references' adds a small detail about the response content, but without elaboration or mention of other behaviors (e.g., pagination, errors, authentication), completeness is limited. Given annotations exist, this is acceptable but not extensive.

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 that front-loads the key information. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and a read-only annotation. The description conveys the essential operation and a hint about the response ('member references'), which is adequate for a straightforward single-fetch tool. Without an output schema, the description could have clarified 'member references' further, but it remains sufficiently complete for the likely use case.

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 0%, so the description carries the responsibility. The single parameter `rule_id` is self-explanatory, and the phrase 'by ID' in the description reinforces its meaning. However, the description does not provide additional detail beyond what the parameter name implies, so it only marginally compensates for the low coverage.

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 action (get), the resource (single ZIA Cloud Firewall IPS rule), the method (by ID), and an additional detail (with member references). This distinguishes it from the list variant (zia_list_cloud_firewall_ips_rules) and other firewall rule getters (zia_get_cloud_firewall_rule).

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?

Usage context is implied: use this to fetch a specific IPS rule by ID. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the list tool or when not to use it, nor any mention of alternatives. The description does not provide exclusion criteria.

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