zpa_get_lss_config

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true', so the description's '(read-only)' is redundant. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error conditions, auth needs, rate limits) are disclosed beyond what annotations cover.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core 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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately states what it does but omits what is returned (the configuration details). Since no output schema exists, returning context would be beneficial.

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 has one parameter 'lss_config_id' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds 'by ID' context, indicating the parameter identifies a specific configuration, but does not elaborate on format or expected values beyond the schema's type.

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 'one ZPA LSS configuration', the required identifier 'by ID', and the readonly nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'zpa_list_lss_configs' which lists all configurations.

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 usage when you have an ID to retrieve a single configuration, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'zpa_list_lss_configs' for listing or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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