zpa_get_app_connector

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

The description's 'read-only' label aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds no contradiction. However, it provides no additional behavioral details beyond what the annotation already conveys, such as response shape, error behavior, or microtenant scoping.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the verb, resource, identifier scope, and read-only nature are all included.

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 get-by-ID tool with readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits any mention of the microtenant_id parameter and does not describe return values, which is notable given there is no output schema. The low complexity and clear purpose keep it from being severely incomplete.

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 only mentions 'by ID', which maps to connector_id but leaves microtenant_id completely unexplained. For a multi-tenant ZPA context, the optional microtenant_id parameter needs semantic clarification that the description does not provide.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('ZPA app connector'), and the scope ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like zpa_list_app_connectors. The 'read-only' qualifier adds useful safety context.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for fetching a single specific connector, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced, so the usage context is only implicit.

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