zia_list_devices_lite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'read-only' is redundant. However, it adds value by specifying the output format (ID, name, owner only) and the support for JMESPath client-side filtering, which informs the agent about data projection capabilities.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key feature (filtering). Every phrase carries weight, no extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: what is listed, format, and filtering. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but these are implicit for a list tool and may be documented elsewhere.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description mentions JMESPath filtering for the query parameter, which is already covered in the schema, adding no new semantic insight. The service parameter is not elaborated on in the description.

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 'List ZIA devices in lightweight format (ID, name, owner only)', specifying the verb (List), resource (ZIA devices), and scope (lightweight format with limited fields). The 'lite' suffix and sibling tools like 'zia_list_devices' (full) provide differentiation.

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 description implies usage for listing devices with limited fields and supports JMESPath filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zia_list_devices) or provide criteria for exclusion. Usage context is inferred but not directive.

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