zia_list_sandbox_rules

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation (a list operation is read-only). However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as scope (all rules), pagination behavior, or field naming issues. The schema's query parameter documentation hints at potential client-side filtering complexities, but the tool description itself remains silent.

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, 'List ZIA Sandbox rules.', which is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or tangential information.

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 list tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description lacks key contextual details: it does not state whether it returns all sandbox rules, what fields/records look like, whether pagination is an issue, or how the search/query parameters affect results. The sparse description leaves the agent under-informed, especially compared to sibling tools that have richer 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?

The tool description does not mention either parameter (query or search). While the schema provides an extensive description for the query parameter (explaining JMESPath usage and field naming pitfalls), the search parameter is completely undocumented, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description fails to compensate for this gap, leaving the semantics of the search parameter unclear.

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 'List ZIA Sandbox rules.' is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It unambiguously identifies the operation (list) and the target (ZIA Sandbox rules), making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and distinguish it from get/update/delete 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools like zia_get_sandbox_rule (for individual rules) or other list tools, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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