zms_get_resource_protection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the output format (counts and percentage), which goes beyond the annotation. No behavioral contradictions; the description aligns with the read-only nature.

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—only one sentence that directly states the purpose and output. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 that the tool has an output schema (documenting return values) and only three optional parameters with complete schema descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the essential intent without needing to elaborate further.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (page_num, page_size, service). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the burden.

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's purpose: 'Get protection status summary for ZMS resources', and specifies the output ('protected/unprotected counts and protection coverage percentage'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like zms_get_metadata or zms_list_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 13 sibling ZMS tools, including zms_get_resource_group_protection_status and zms_list_resources, the agent would benefit from context on when this summary is appropriate, but none is given.

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