zins_get_shadow_it_apps

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool includes risk scores and detection, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. Given the annotation, the description meets a baseline but lacks extra context.

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 that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the key 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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only list tool with a well-documented input schema and an existing output schema. It provides a clear high-level purpose, though it could mention the list nature (e.g., 'returns a list') for added clarity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 tool provides discovered shadow IT applications with risk scores, including unsanctioned and unauthorized detection. It uses specific verbs and resource names. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'zia_list_shadow_it_apps', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual conditions. It simply describes the tool's output without usage instructions.

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