zia_list_cloud_app_ssl_policy

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: false, which already cover the read-only nature. The description says 'List', which is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering behavior, or output structure). It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enrich beyond them.

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 that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, given the richness of the schema, a bit more detail might be warranted, but for what it covers, it is efficient.

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 six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to provide a complete picture. It does not explain the meaning of parameters like 'search', 'app_class', or 'group_results', nor does it hint at the response format or pagination behavior. The tool's complexity is not matched by the description, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct usage.

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 description provides no information about the six parameters (page, query, search, app_class, page_size, group_results). Schema coverage is only 17% (only 'query' has a description), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meanings or relationships. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 (list), the resource (ZIA policy-engine cloud-application catalog), and the specific context (SSL Inspection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zia_list_cloud_app_policy, which likely handles the non-SSL catalog. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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. The description does not mention when to prefer this over zia_list_cloud_app_policy or other ZIA listing tools. While the SSL Inspection context is implied, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or when to use other tools.

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