zms_get_resource_group_protection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds useful context beyond annotations by stating that ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID is required and that the return value includes counts and percentage. No contradiction with 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 succinct and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: aggregate view, read-only, return content, and required customer ID. No redundant or filler text.

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 tool has an output schema and readOnlyHint, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the aggregate nature, read-only behavior, auth requirement, and what the summary includes. Missing pagination semantics, but given the optional parameters and output schema, the description is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (page_num, page_size). It does not mention them at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. This is a notable gap since pagination behavior is undocumented.

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 gets a ZMS resource-group protection-status summary, specifically an aggregate view. It distinguishes from the sibling zms_get_resource_protection_status by emphasizing 'resource-group' and 'aggregate view', and further clarifies output as protected vs unprotected group counts and percentage.

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 use for an aggregate summary view, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternative tools like zms_get_resource_protection_status for per-resource details, so the agent must infer the intended scope from the name and phrases like 'aggregate view'.

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