zpa_list_application_servers

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

The description repeats the 'read-only' annotation but adds no extra behavioral context. For a list operation with pagination parameters (page, page_size), it does not mention that results may be paginated, how to handle large datasets, or any rate limit considerations. Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description fails to add value beyond the structured data.

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 one short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema. While it wastes no words, it is under-informative for the complexity implied by the input schema. A balanced description would be longer but still concise.

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 no output schema, the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of server objects, pagination metadata). It also does not cover how parameters affect results (e.g., search filter, microtenant scoping). The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to successfully invoke the tool without prior domain knowledge.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with only 20% coverage (the 'query' parameter has a JMESPath description). The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, leaving the agent uninformed about how to use page, search, page_size, or microtenant_id. Since coverage is low (<50%), the description should compensate but does not.

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 application servers', specifying the verb and resource. The addition of 'read-only' aligns with the annotation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'zpa_get_application_server' (which gets a single server) or related list tools such as 'zpa_list_application_segments', though the resource name distinguishes it. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list vs get a specific server, or prerequisites like microtenant_id for multi-tenant environments). The description simply states the action without context on appropriate use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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