zpa_get_access_policy_rule

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description only repeats 'read-only' and provides no additional behavioral context such as not-found behavior, authentication requirements, pagination, or response characteristics.

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 a single short sentence and is front-loaded with the main action. However, 'read-only' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so not 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?

For a simple read-only getter with a clear purpose and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. But it omits parameter semantics and any indication of return values or error behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 says nothing about rule_id or microtenant_id beyond what the schema shows. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of semantic detail, especially for the optional microtenant_id.

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 and resource: 'Get one ZPA access policy rule (read-only).' It clearly identifies the object type and singular scope, which helps distinguish it from list or other-policy-rule siblings, though it does not explicitly compare against them.

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 singular 'Get one' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific access policy rule rather than listing all rules. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like zpa_list_access_policy_rules, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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