zms_get_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the requirement for ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID and stating it returns 'full record' metadata, which goes beyond 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 extremely concise with two short paragraphs. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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, parameter-less tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential: purpose, read-only nature, and a required context. It could mention that the metadata is about available resource events, which it does. Minor gap: no mention of scope (e.g., all events or filtered).

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per calibration. Description does not need to add parameter details, but mentions a required context (customer ID) which is useful.

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 fetches ZMS resource event metadata. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resource event metadata'), distinguishing it from siblings like zms_get_agent_version_statistics or list 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?

The description implies when to use (when metadata about resource events is needed) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance. Among siblings, no direct alternative exists, but clearer usage cues would help.

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