zia_list_devices_lite

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds the 'id/name only' constraint, which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or response structure. Since annotations cover the safety profile and the description adds minor value, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the core purpose and scope. The query parameter's detailed description in the schema adds necessary context about filtering and field naming, but that is outside the tool description itself.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'query' parameter, which is thoroughly documented including pitfalls. The tool description itself does not mention the parameter, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb (List), the resource (ZIA devices), and the scope (via the lighter endpoint, id/name only). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool zia_list_devices by specifying the reduced response shape.

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 when to use this tool by stating it returns id/name only, suggesting it's for lightweight needs compared to the full device list. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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