zia_list_gre_ranges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination defaults, rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a list operation with a query parameter that has a critical caveat (field naming), the description does not surface any of these nuances.

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 states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and limited annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameters (beyond the query field's schema description), nor does it provide examples or note the response shape. The description is incomplete for an agent to use it effectively without prior knowledge.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only the query parameter has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters, and the other three (limit, static_ip, internal_ip_range) remain undocumented. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not. The detailed query description in the schema is helpful but not part of the tool 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 the verb (List) and the resource (ZIA GRE internal-IP ranges). It distinguishes from sibling tools like zia_list_gre_tunnels, which lists tunnels not internal-IP ranges, and other list tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The description is purely functional without contextual direction.

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