zia_list_devices

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a read-only operation with complete listing semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects, but annotations already cover the safety profile. Since annotations are present, the description is minimally sufficient but adds little. 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?

The main description is overly terse at just 'List ZIA devices.' while the schema contains a lengthy and valuable description for the query parameter. The tool description itself is minimal but not wasteful. The query parameter's text is long but necessary and well-structured. Overall, description is acceptable but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for the basic purpose but lacks context on pagination, sorting, or filtering behavior. The query parameter does provide important operational guidance. However, the tool does not explain what 'ZIA devices' are in this context, or how results are ordered. With six parameters and zero required, there is room for more guidance on typical use cases.

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 coverage is only 17%, but the description provides no parameter details. However, the query parameter has a rich description that explains JMESPath semantics, field naming pitfalls, and suggests a safe initial call. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. Other parameters (name, page, user_ids, page_size, include_all) lack description, but the query description alone compensates for the low coverage. A score of 4 reflects the high-value explanatory content for the most complex parameter.

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 'List ZIA devices' states the verb and resource, and the name confirms the same. It is clear enough about what it does but does not distinguish from sibling tools like zia_list_devices_lite or zdx_list_devices. No additional context clarifies scope or differences.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action. For instance, there is no mention of when to use zia_list_devices vs zia_list_devices_lite, or whether the device context differs from zdx_list_devices. No exclusions or contextual cues are present.

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