zia_get_malware_settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the '16-field' detail, which hints at the response structure but not at authentication, rate limits, or side effects. This is consistent with annotations with no contradiction.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded and the description is appropriately concise for a simple read-only getter.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the '16-field' block contains, how it differs from related malware/ATP settings, or what the return value looks like (no output schema). Some ambiguity remains, especially given the large number of similar sibling tools.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation gaps.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('ZIA 16-field malware threat-class settings block'), with an extra detail ('16-field') that helps distinguish it from other ZIA security settings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like zia_get_atp_malware_policy or zia_get_advanced_settings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about its specific role among many similar ZIA getters.

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