zpa_get_provisioning_key

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

The read-only behavior is already indicated by the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description merely repeats this without adding new behavioral details. No contradictions, but no additional transparency provided.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose without superfluous information. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies what is retrieved and the required parameters. No missing context that would hinder usage.

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 schema fully defines both parameters: key_id as a string and key_type with an enum of 'connector' and 'service_edge'. The description adds no extra explanation, but the parameter names and enum values are self-explanatory, so coverage is high and baseline 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's function: 'Get ZPA provisioning key by ID and type (read-only).' It specifies the resource (ZPA provisioning key) and the operation (get by ID and type), distinguishing it from list operations.

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 a specific key ID and type are known, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'zpa_list_provisioning_keys' tool or state when to prefer one over the other. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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