zia_get_ips_signature_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: false, signaling a safe read operation without side effects. The description adds minimal extra context: it mentions the response includes the rule's 'body', which is a useful hint but not extensive. Since the key behavioral trait (read-only) is already disclosed by annotations, the description fulfills a basic benchmark but doesn't go beyond with details like error cases or authorization requirements.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise, to the point, and could be considered under-specified only in that it leaves out any usage qualifications or further contextual details. Still, it earns a high score for being crisp and effective.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It clearly explains what will be returned (the rule with its body) and how to use it (provide the rule's ID). However, it doesn't provide extra context like example IDs or error handling, though these may be beyond the scope of a simple getter tool. It is adequate for this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden of conveying parameter purpose. While it doesn't detail the format of rule_id, the phrase 'by ID' clarifies the parameter is the unique identifier for the rule. The tool's single parameter makes this straightforward: the description and tool name make the parameter's purpose—the ID of the rule—clear. A slight deduction is warranted because it does not specify the ID format or yield examples.

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 "Get a single ZIA custom IPS signature rule by ID with its body" clearly identifies the action (Get), the resource (a single ZIA custom IPS signature rule), and the retrieval method (by ID with its body). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool zia_list_ips_signature_rules which lists multiple rules. However, it could be more explicit about differentiating itself from other 'get' operations within the same family.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves a single rule by ID, giving context that one would use this when they have a specific rule ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among the many siblings, but the 'by ID' phrasing implies a use case distinct from listing. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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