zms_get_resource_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 valuable context beyond annotations: the return content (protected vs unprotected counts, protection percentage) and the auth requirement (ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID). It does not contradict 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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential return-value and auth context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete: it states the return summary, read-only nature, and required customer ID. The main gap is the absence of pagination semantics, but this is a simple read-only summary tool, so the overall context is sufficient.

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%, and the description does not mention page_num or page_size at all. While the parameter names and defaults are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage or clarify how pagination affects the aggregate summary.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a precise resource ('ZMS resource protection-status summary'), with 'curated aggregate view' clarifying the scope. This distinguishes it from the sibling zms_get_resource_group_protection_status, which targets resource groups rather than the overall summary.

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 phrase 'microsegmentation coverage at a glance' implies a quick-summary use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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