zms_list_app_zones

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description stating 'Read-only' is redundant. It adds value by specifying the return structure (one row per app zone with specific fields) and the requirement for ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID, but these are minimal beyond the annotation. No destructive or mutation traits are disclosed, but none are expected.

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, consisting of three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose ('List ZMS app zones') and then adds key details (read-only, return format, requirement). Every sentence adds value.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and a required context (customer ID). However, it omits explanations for pagination and filtering parameters (name, page_num, page_size, sort_order), which are relevant for a list tool. It is moderately complete but has gaps.

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 low (20%), with only the 'query' parameter described. The description does not explain any of the five parameters (name, query, page_num, page_size, sort_order) beyond mentioning the customer ID requirement, which is not a parameter. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 lists ZMS app zones, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ZMS app zones'). It also details the output format (one row per app zone with id, name, description, resource count). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like zms_list_agent_groups, which also list resources, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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 notes the tool is read-only and requires ZSCALER_CUSTOMER_ID, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose list_app_zones over list_agents). It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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