zia_list_gre_ranges

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

The description labels the tool as read-only, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds mention of JMESPath filtering, a notable feature, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or return volume.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and adds a key feature. It is appropriately concise, though slightly more structure could improve clarity about the tool's role.

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 an output schema present and no required parameters, the description is adequate for a simple list tool. It covers the JMESPath feature but could mention pagination or limit behavior beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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%, providing baseline context. The description adds value by explaining that the query parameter enables JMESPath client-side filtering, which goes beyond the schema's description of it as a 'JMESPath expression for client-side filtering/projection of results.'

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 tool lists available ZIA GRE IP ranges and is read-only. It distinguishes from siblings like zia_list_gre_tunnels (which lists tunnels) and zia_get_gre_tunnel (which gets a specific tunnel).

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 indicates that JMESPath client-side filtering is supported via the query parameter, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools for GRE-related operations. The differentiation from siblings is inferred from the name.

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