zpa_get_forwarding_policy_rule

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It repeats 'read-only' but does not disclose anything about return format, error handling, required permissions, or microtenant behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add meaningful 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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it offers minimal value beyond the tool name, so while concise, it is not optimally informative.

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, the description is arguably sufficient, but it does not mention the return value, the role of microtenant_id, or how this rule fits into ZPA policy. No output schema exists, so some explanation of what is returned would be expected. The description leaves the agent to infer too much.

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 does not explain either parameter. 'rule_id' is self-evident from the name but 'microtenant_id' is left completely undefined. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but does not.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ZPA client forwarding policy rule'), and clearly scopes to a single rule ('one'), distinguishing it from list operations like zpa_list_forwarding_policy_rules. It also labels the operation as read-only, which aligns with the annotation.

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 the sibling list tool (zpa_list_forwarding_policy_rules) or other get-rule tools. The usage context is implied by the name and 'Get one', but no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are stated.

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