zpa_list_application_servers

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

The description adds only '(read-only)', which is already declared by readOnlyHint: true, providing no extra behavioral context beyond annotations. It lacks details on pagination, result format, filtering behavior, or any side effects/limitations. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, the description's contribution is minimal.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundant elaboration.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not clarify the meaning or usage of the parameters, the structure of returned records, or how to navigate pagination. The detailed query parameter description exists in the schema, but the overall tool context remains incomplete.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'query' has a description), and the tool description does not explain any parameters. Page, search, page_size, and microtenant_id are left entirely to the agent to infer from names. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, offering no semantic guidance for the parameters.

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' with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'application servers', and adds '(read-only)' to clarify the operation type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zpa_get_application_server (singular fetch) and other zpa_list_* tools targeting different resources.

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 as a list operation but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention when to use this over zpa_get_application_server or how it differs from other list tools. The purpose is self-evident, granting an implied usage context, but no guidance beyond that.

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