zpa_get_lss_config

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

The description explicitly marks the operation as read-only, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It details the fields included in the response, adding value beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, but the annotation covers the main safety aspect.

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 efficiently communicates the action (get by ID), the resource (ZPA LSS configuration), and the returned fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspects of what the tool retrieves and is complete for this specific retrieval operation. No obvious gaps are present for this tool type.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('ID of the LSS configuration' and 'The service to use') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add new meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a specific ZPA LSS configuration by ID, and lists included fields like source log type, log format template, destination host/port, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like zpa_get_lss_log_format (which focuses only on log format) and zpa_list_lss_configs (which lists all configs).

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 implicitly suggests when to use the tool (when you need a specific config by ID), but does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives, such as using zpa_get_lss_log_format for just the log format or zpa_list_lss_configs to get all configs. No exclusions or context are provided.

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