zia_get_network_app

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

The description states it returns a single object by ID, which adds a behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, return format, or other operational traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence (9 words) that is entirely relevant and front-loaded. No redundant information or filler.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and read-only annotation, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage. The lack of an output schema is acceptable given the simple nature of the tool, though return value details are not explicitly stated.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates only minimally by clarifying that app_id is the identifier used to fetch the network application. It does not provide format constraints or additional semantic context beyond what the parameter name implies.

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 specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('ZIA network application') and scope ('single by ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as zia_list_network_apps (list) and zia_get_network_app_group (get group).

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 'by ID' qualifier implies the tool is for fetching a single specific application when an app_id is known. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the usage context is clear from the description.

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