zia_list_ssl_inspection_rules

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., scope, pagination, or side effects), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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, short sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. It is as concise as possible for the information it does convey.

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 description is tautological and provides almost no contextual value beyond the name and schema. It does not mention return characteristics, whether all rules are returned, or point to the singular getter tool. The detailed query parameter schema partially compensates, but the description itself leaves the agent without sufficient context for making informed tool-choice decisions.

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 100% schema description coverage with detailed JMESPath examples and caveats. The tool description itself says nothing about this parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 SSL Inspection rules.' simply restates the tool name 'zia_list_ssl_inspection_rules' with underscores replaced by spaces. It does not add any additional scope, clarify what the rules contain, or explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'zia_get_ssl_inspection_rule' beyond the verb 'list' versus 'get'.

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 such as zia_get_ssl_inspection_rule (singular) or other list tools. There are no hints about typical use cases, limitations, or when to prefer a different tool.

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