zia_list_gre_tunnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only and closed-world aspects are covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, pagination, or return format). It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations, so a 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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 low-complexity with only an optional parameter, but the description fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., list of GRE tunnel objects, common fields), nor does it note any limits or special behavior. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value, which it does not.

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 only parameter `query` has full schema description coverage (100%) with examples and warnings, so the schema carries the semantics. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema description is sufficient, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (list) and resource (ZIA GRE tunnels), and the name distinguishes it from siblings like `zia_get_gre_tunnel`. However, it lacks additional scope details (e.g., 'all', 'in this account') that would make it fully explicit, though it is unambiguous.

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. There is no mention of `zia_get_gre_tunnel` for retrieving a single tunnel or any other exclusions or prerequisites. The description offers only the bare action.

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