zia_list_cloud_app_control_actions

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true) already convey this is a safe read, and the description's "List" is consistent with that (no contradiction). However, it adds no behavioral color beyond the annotations — nothing about what a CAC action contains, whether the category is required/where it comes from, pagination behavior, or realistic example usage.

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, tightly-scoped sentence that front-loads the verb and omits filler. It earns its place with no wasted words, though the brevity does cross slightly into under-specification.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the returned records look like or how the response is structured — it does neither. The description fails to clarify what a "category" is, how it relates to rule_type, or how cloud_apps filters results, leaving a sophisticated list tool (per the query warning) under-documented.

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 schema's `query` parameter is superbly documented, but that is schema credit, not description credit. With only 33% schema-description coverage and orphaned parameters rule_type and cloud_apps (both undocumented), the description was expected to compensate and instead never mentions either parameter, missing that "category" likely refers to rule_type.

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+resource ("List...available CAC actions") and scopes it "for a category," which is reasonably clear on its face. However, "CAC" is unexplained jargon (decipherable only from the tool name), and the description reads nearly identically to siblings like zia_list_cloud_app_control_rules/zia_get_cloud_app_control_rule, providing no differentiation. What "category" maps to (rule_type) is left implicit.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zia_list_cloud_app_control_rules, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The parenthetical "(and optional cloud apps)" weakly implies that cloud_apps is an optional filter, but there is no explicit when/when-not direction.

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