zpa_list_application_segments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to emphasize safety. It adds value by describing the output format (full record with highlights on ids, domains, ports, toggles). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or rate limits, which are relevant for a listing tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action. It avoids fluff. However, the phrase 'normalized highlights' is slightly vague and could be more precise, but overall it is efficient.

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 five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain filtering, searching, or pagination capabilities. The output format is only vaguely described. A listing tool should at least mention key parameters or default behavior.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'query' has a description). The tool's description does not mention any of the five parameters (page, search, page_size, microtenant_id), nor does it explain how to filter or paginate results. With such low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent with no guidance on parameter usage.

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 lists ZPA application segments, providing a specific verb and resource. The addition about output format (full record with normalized highlights) clarifies what is returned. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like zpa_list_application_segments_ba or zpa_get_application_segment, though the tool name itself implies listing all.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zpa_get_application_segment for a single segment, or zpa_list_application_segments_ba for BA segments. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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