zpa_list_lss_configs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with '(read-only)' while adding the behavioral gloss 'what log feed streams where.' However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or other operational traits beyond what the annotation already provides.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose and read-only nature.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and a detailed query-parameter schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits return-value details, pagination behavior, and the relationship to zpa_get_lss_config, which would help an agent select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool description itself provides no parameter information. Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'query' has a description), and with low coverage the description should compensate but does not. Page, search, and page_size remain unexplained by the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ZPA LSS configurations'), with a clarifying gloss ('what log feed streams where') that conveys the tool's scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling LSS tools like zpa_list_lss_status_codes, zpa_list_lss_log_types, and zpa_get_lss_config.

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 through the verb 'List' and the resource name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zpa_get_lss_config for a single configuration. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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