zpa_list_app_protection_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly notes '(read-only)'. It adds no new behavioral information about pagination, output format, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations, but it provides minimal value beyond them.

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, short sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to meaning. Perfectly concise for what it conveys.

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 tool has no output schema, relies on pagination parameters, and includes a complex 'query' parameter with potential pitfalls, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, response structure, or the nuanced behavior of the query parameter (which is only described in the schema, not the tool description). For an agent needing to use this correctly, more context is needed beyond the minimal description.

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 tool description provides zero information about any parameters. Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'query' has a description, which is in the schema, not the tool description). Since coverage is low, the tool description must compensate but does not, leaving page, page_size, search, and microtenant_id unexplained.

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: 'List ZPA app-protection (inspection) policy rules', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zpa_get_app_protection_rule (get vs list) and other policy list tools (access, forwarding) by naming the exact policy type.

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 identifies the specific resource type, making it clear when to use this tool (when listing app-protection rules). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as using zpa_get_app_protection_rule for a single rule or other list tools for different rule types. Usage is implied but not stated.

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