zins_get_shadow_it_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is reinforced by the description. Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns one row per app, empty result means no shadow apps, and the window must be a 7- or 14-day interval. These are useful behavioral traits.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the main purpose. There is no redundancy, and every sentence adds value. It could benefit from bullet points or more structure, but it is still efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the output structure and the window constraint, but it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or full response schema. It covers core aspects but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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 only 17% (only the query parameter is described). The description adds partial context for the time window (must be 7-14 days), helping with start_days_ago and end_days_ago, but does not explain limit or other parameters. It compensates somewhat but insufficiently.

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 it 'Get discovered Shadow IT applications with risk and usage detail' and specifies the output format (one row per app with fields like category, risk index, etc.). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool zins_get_shadow_it_summary, which likely provides a summary view.

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 implies this tool is for detailed listing of shadow IT apps, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like zins_get_shadow_it_summary or other analytics tools. It mentions the window constraint but lacks usage conditions.

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