zpa_get_lss_config

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

The read-only annotation already discloses non-mutating behavior, and the description simply repeats 'read-only' without adding any other behavioral detail. No mention of return types, error handling, or side effects. With annotations present, the description adds minimal value beyond the existing safety guarantee.

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, crisp sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action and scope. This is ideal for a trivial adjustment tool.

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 with no output schema and fully covered by the read-only annotation, the description is adequate but leaves the agent to guess about return format or typical usage. It does not mention any prerequisites or specifics beyond the ID, but since it's a straightforward read operation, the missing details are not critical.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates 'by ID,' which is already evident from the parameter name. It does not explain what constitutes a valid ID or how to obtain one, nor does it clarify the parameter's format beyond what the schema already provides. The description adds marginal value.

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 (ZPA LSS configuration), and the scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from list operations and other get tools by specifying the unique identifier requirement. The read-only annotation is redundant but the core purpose is perfectly clear.

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 use when you have a specific lss_config_id, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly exclude use of list tools, but the 'by ID' phrasing naturally differentiates from `zpa_list_lss_configs`. There are no explicit contradictions or misleading guidance.

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