zpa_get_application_segment_pra

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

The description confirms the tool is 'read-only', consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by specifying the exact data included ('common_apps_dto.apps_config block of RDP/SSH targets'). This goes beyond the annotation to clarify what the agent can expect. No contradictions.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence covers the purpose and key details, and the second provides a usage condition. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 has only one required parameter and an available output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage condition. It does not discuss prerequisites or error handling, but those are not critical for this simple read operation. The description feels sufficiently complete within the context.

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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any further explanation of parameter meanings, roles, or constraints beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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', the resource 'ZPA Privileged Remote Access (PRA) application segment', and includes specifics like 'by ID' and 'including its common_apps_dto.apps_config block'. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from others by mentioning PRA, which aligns with sibling tools like zpa_get_application_segment and zpa_get_application_segment_ba.

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 explicitly states 'Use only when the admin asks about Privileged Remote Access.' This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and implicitly excludes non-PRA contexts. It sets a specific condition that helps the agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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