zpa_list_application_segments_pra

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by confirming read-only behavior and mentioning JMESPath client-side filtering. It also explains the PRA-specific scope, which is beyond what annotations cover.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and sibling distinction, followed by usage guidance and a key feature. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 list tool with six parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and a notable filtering capability. It does not describe the return format, but given the simplicity and read-only nature, it is adequately complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context for the 'query' parameter by explaining it enables JMESPath client-side filtering, which is not detailed in the schema. No other parameters are elaborated beyond schema, but the added value for query is notable.

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 (PRA) application segments for RDP/SSH targets, distinguishes it from the sibling zpa_list_application_segments, and mentions JMESPath filtering. The verb 'List' and specific resource 'PRA application segments' provide a clear purpose.

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 explicitly states 'Use only when the admin asks about Privileged Remote Access (RDP/SSH)', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies the alternative zpa_list_application_segments for non-PRA cases, but does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools.

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