zms_list_agents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only'. It adds context beyond annotations: requires ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID (not in schema) and lists the specific output fields (since no output schema). This is useful but doesn't address pagination or error behavior, so not a 5.

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 lines, each sentence adds value: purpose, read-only confirmation, return fields, requirement, and downstream usage. No fluff or 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 list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields, a required input (ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID), and a usage hint. However, it does not explain the remaining parameters (page, page_size, sort, etc.) beyond what's in the schema. The query parameter is well documented in the schema, so the description is moderately complete, but could mention pagination behavior.

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 schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'query' has a detailed description). The tool description does not explain any parameters such as page, page_size, sort, or search. It only mentions the output fields and a downstream usage tip, which does not compensate for the low parameter coverage. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'ZMS microsegmentation agents', and specifies the returned fields (eyez_id, name, connection status, version, OS, IP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zms_list_agent_groups.

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 that a returned eyez_id can be used with agent-group/nonce tools, indicating downstream usage but not explicitly when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative listing tools. The context implies it's for individual agent details, but that's not explicit.

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