zia_list_network_apps

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

Description includes 'read-only' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, adding behavioral context. It also mentions JMESPath client-side filtering. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or data volume behavior. With annotations already indicating safety, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value. Excellent structure for quick comprehension.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, filtering options, and read-only nature adequately. Missing only minor details like pagination, which are not critical for a basic list tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description summarizes the parameters by mentioning 'search or locale' filtering and JMESPath, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. It provides a helpful overview but no additional semantic depth.

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?

Description clearly states 'List ZIA network applications' with specific verb and resource. It mentions optional filtering and JMESPath support. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zia_get_network_app or zia_list_network_app_groups, which list related resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for a single network application, zia_get_network_app should be used, or how this differs from listing network app groups. Implied usage from 'List' is insufficient.

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