zms_list_policy_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's read-only nature is known. The description adds that it returns specific fields and supports JMESPath, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination limits, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 sentences, quickly conveying purpose, filtering options, return fields, and a special feature (JMESPath). It is concise with no fluff.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers core functionality, filtering, and return fields. However, it does not mention the 'service' or 'fetch_all' parameters (though documented in schema), which could be useful context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 parameters. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (rule name, action, priority, targets, port/protocol) and highlighting JMESPath filtering, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool lists ZMS microsegmentation policy rules with pagination and filtering. It specifies the return fields (rule name, action, priority, source/destination targets, port/protocol specs), which clarifies the resource and verb. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like zms_list_default_policy_rules.

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 explains filtering by name or action and mentiones pagination and JMESPath filtering, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., zms_list_default_policy_rules). For a sibling set with many similar tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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