zpa_get_app_protection_rule

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)'. The description adds the clarifier 'inspection' to disambiguate the rule type. It does not mention permissions, errors, or pagination, but for a simple get-by-ID operation with read-only annotation, this is sufficient additional context.

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, tightly worded sentence. Every word adds value: 'Get' (verb), 'one' (singular), 'ZPA app-protection' (resource scope), '(inspection)' (type clarification), 'policy rule' (exact object), '(read-only)' (safety hint). 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, one required, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but omits any explanation of the microtenant_id parameter, which could be critical for multi-tenant contexts. The description is not fully complete because it leaves parameter semantics unaddressed, though the operation itself is straightforward.

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 description provides zero information about the parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining rule_id or microtenant_id. With no supplementary meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, the description fails to help the agent understand what values to provide or how they affect the lookup.

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 'Get' and the specific resource 'one ZPA app-protection (inspection) policy rule'. It distinguishes from list tools by saying 'one' and from other policy rule types (e.g., forwarding, isolation) by naming 'app-protection'. The read-only qualifier adds precision.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single rule by ID, as opposed to listing all rules (e.g., zpa_list_app_protection_rules sibling). It does not explicitly name the list alternative, but the 'one' qualifier and resource name effectively communicate the intended use case. No exclusions are given, but clarity is adequate.

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