zpa_get_application_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond repeating 'read-only'. It does not discuss error handling, permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes minimal additional transparency.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple read operation. 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?

Given the tool has two parameters (one required, one optional) and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct usage. It omits parameter details and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an AI agent. The description is incomplete compared to the tool's actual complexity.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description does not mention server_id or microtenant_id, nor does it clarify their roles. While server_id's purpose might be inferred from the tool name, microtenant_id remains unexplained. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one ZPA application server'. It also includes '(read-only)' which, while redundant with annotations, reinforces the safe nature. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_application_servers by implying singular retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. However, the phrase 'Get one' implicitly suggests it is for retrieving a single server by ID, contrasting with list tools. The sibling list_application_servers exists, but the description does not draw that distinction. Usage is implied but not clearly stated.

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