zms_get_resource_group_protection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' adds minimal value. It discloses the output (counts and percentage) but does not detail pagination behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. The annotation covers the core behavioral trait.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses three sentences without wasted words. However, the line breaks are unnecessary but do not significantly harm readability.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values, but it omits explanation of the pagination parameters which are likely for listing multiple groups. The 'aggregate view' phrasing contradicts the presence of pagination, leading to confusion. The description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 two parameters (page_num, page_size) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention or explain them. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to do so. The presence of pagination parameters in an 'aggregate view' is confusing and unaddressed.

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 'Get the ZMS resource-group protection-status summary (aggregate view)' and specifies it returns 'protected vs unprotected group counts and percentage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'zms_get_resource_protection_status' which likely deals with individual resources.

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 mentions 'Requires ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID' as a prerequisite but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The 'aggregate view' hint is implicit but not sufficient for clear decision-making.

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