zpa_list_isolation_policy_rules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'read-only' is redundant but consistent. It adds value by disclosing JMESPath client-side filtering support, which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation. However, no other behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are mentioned.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a key behavioral note about filtering. It could be slightly improved with a period after 'read-only', 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 the tool's straightforward nature (list operation, 4 well-described parameters, existing output schema, and read-only annotation), the description is fairly complete. It covers the core action and a notable feature (JMESPath filtering). It could mention default ordering or pagination, but the output schema likely handles return value details.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifically highlighting the 'query' parameter's JMESPath filtering capability, which reinforces its purpose. For other parameters, the schema alone is sufficient, but the extra context for one parameter justifies a score above baseline.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'ZPA isolation policy rules', and includes '(read-only)' to emphasize safety. Among siblings, it distinguishes itself by specifying the exact policy type (isolation) which differs from other list tools for access, forwarding, etc.

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 isolation policy rules but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when to use zpa_get_isolation_policy_rule for a single rule). No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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