zpa_list_lss_configs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true. Description adds that the tool does not return log content, which reinforces safety. It also discloses support for JMESPath filtering, which is behavioral. No contradictions.

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: the first explains purpose and scope, the second clarifies read-only nature and filtering capability. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (configs, not logs) and how to filter. It could mention pagination or search but those are schema-covered.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description only mentions JMESPath filtering, which is already in the schema. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 LSS configurations, specifies what they route (log feed types), and contrasts with 'does not return log content'. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that might return log data or client types.

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 configuration retrieval and notes it's read-only without log content. It mentions JMESPath filtering for client-side processing. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or recommend alternatives like zpa_list_lss_client_types for client types.

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