zpa_list_application_segments_pra

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a read operation. The description adds useful context about the query parameter's client-side filtering behavior and warns about field naming conventions, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or other potential side effects, though readOnlyHint covers safety.

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 for the main purpose, but the query parameter documentation is lengthy and detailed. While valuable, it could be slightly more structured, but it's front-loaded with the core purpose and the query details are necessary for correct usage.

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 and only 20% schema description coverage, the description provides sufficient context for a list operation. It covers the main purpose, the key parameter (query) with critical warnings, and the read-only nature is implied by annotations. It doesn't describe return format, but for a list tool with readOnlyHint, this is adequate.

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), but the description provides extensive detail on the query parameter, including examples and a critical warning about field naming. Other parameters (page, search, page_size, microtenant_id) are self-explanatory from their names, and the description compensates for the low coverage by explaining the most complex parameter.

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 privileged-remote-access application segments, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like zpa_list_application_segments and zpa_list_application_segments_ba by the 'pra' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 for listing PRA application segments but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like zpa_list_application_segments or zpa_get_application_segment_pra. The query parameter documentation gives some usage context for filtering, but no when/when-not guidance.

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