zia_list_network_services

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is known. The description adds the case-insensitive behavior of the name parameter, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or how search/protocol affect results.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded ('List ZIA network services') and the parameter hint is placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with 0 required params, the core purpose is covered. However, with no output schema and two undocumented params (search, protocol), the description could be more complete. The schema's detailed `query` documentation helps, but the tool still has gaps in parameter coverage and return-value disclosure.

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 low (25% — only `query` is documented in the schema). The description compensates partially by noting `name` enables case-insensitive find-by-name, adding meaning beyond the bare schema entry. However, `search` and `protocol` remain completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 states the tool action clearly: 'List ZIA network services' — a specific verb and resource. The second sentence adds the find-by-name capability. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like zia_list_network_svc_groups or zia_get_network_service, but the ZIA scope and 'list' vs 'get' verb provide implicit differentiation.

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 instruction 'Use `name` for case-insensitive find-by-name' implies when to use the name parameter, providing some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on how this tool relates to zia_get_network_service or zia_list_network_svc_groups among the many sibling list tools.

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