zpa_get_application_server

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

The description echoes the readOnlyHint annotation ('read-only') but does not add new behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. Slightly more context could be added about the ID parameter, but it remains concise.

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 (single read by ID), the description combined with the schema and annotations provides sufficient context. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description does not mention pagination or limitations, but those are not critical for this operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (application server), and the method (by ID). It also specifies read-only behavior, which distinguishes it from mutation tools. The description is unambiguous and specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zpa_list_application_servers. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for selection. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters.

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