zpa_list_app_protection_rules

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description's confirmation of read-only adds little. However, it goes beyond by mentioning JMESPath client-side filtering capability, a behavioral trait not in annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys key information.

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?

Description is sufficient given the tool's low complexity, presence of output schema, and annotations. It could mention related tools like 'zpa_get_app_protection_rule' but is not necessary for basic understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'query' parameter supports JMESPath filtering, which is not fully obvious from the schema alone. Other parameters are adequately described in schema.

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 'List ZPA app protection rules (read-only)', specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'app protection rules'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zpa_get_app_protection_rule' (single rule) and 'get_zpa_app_protection_profile' (profile).

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 mentions it is read-only and supports JMESPath filtering, implying usage scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retrieving a single rule). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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