zpa_list_lss_status_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description's 'read-only catalog' is redundant but harmless. It adds minimal behavioral context ('used in config filters') but doesn't disclose parameter effects or output shape, which is acceptable given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, with the verb and resource front-loaded. No wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and read-only nature, but it omits any explanation of the log_type parameter, which is a notable gap. The tool is not fully self-explanatory without that detail.

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 single parameter log_type is completely ignored by the description, and the schema has no description either (schema description coverage 0%). The description does not explain how log_type affects results, leaving a significant ambiguity for a parameter that is optional but likely meaningful for filtering.

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'), identifies a distinct resource ('ZPA LSS session status codes'), and adds a qualifier ('used in config filters') that differentiates it from sibling tools like zpa_list_lss_client_types or zpa_list_lss_log_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 phrase 'used in config filters' provides clear context on when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the resource is specific enough that agents can infer its purpose relative to sibling tools.

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