zia_get_sandbox_rule

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds little beyond that. 'Get a single... rule' is self-explanatory, and 'with member references' hints at response contents but doesn't describe any side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds marginal value.

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 sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. It is highly concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it's so minimal that it borders on under-specification, but for the purpose it serves, it is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, a single parameter, and no nested complexity, the description should provide at least basic context about the return value or expected behavior. It mentions 'member references' but doesn't define them. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's output or potential edge cases, making it incomplete.

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%, and the description only references 'by ID' which loosely maps to the rule_id parameter. It doesn't explain the format of the ID, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The parameter is required but its nature is left to the schema's minimal type/title. This does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 a single sandbox rule by ID, with the added detail that it includes member references. This distinguishes it from list tools like 'zia_list_sandbox_rules' and parallels other get-by-ID tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'member references' means.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It's implied that you need a rule_id, likely obtained from a list operation, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided. The description is purely declarative without usage instructions.

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