zpa_list_pra_credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only claim adds no new information. However, the description does add 'Secrets are never returned,' which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure not present in the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies an important safety property. This is a modest contribution beyond the annotation, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately adds the critical safety note. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. This is an exemplary model of efficiency.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination, search behavior, microtenant scoping, or how results are structured. The agent would have to guess or call the tool once to understand these aspects. While the basic list function is clear, the overall context is incomplete for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is only 20% (only the 'query' parameter has a description). The tool description does not address the parameters at all, failing to compensate for the low coverage. The agent receives no explanation of 'page', 'page_size', 'search', or 'microtenant_id' beyond the bare names. This is a significant gap in a tool with five parameters, so the description adds no semantic value.

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's purpose: 'List ZPA PRA credentials (read-only).' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('ZPA PRA credentials'), and adds an important qualification ('Secrets are never returned'). The name inherently distinguishes it from the sibling 'zpa_get_pra_credential', and the read-only note reinforces the safe read operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate. There is no mention of the get variant or other list tools, so the usage context is absent.

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