zpa_list_pra_credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description confirms 'read-only' and adds the JMESPath filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or empty response handling. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action. No extraneous information; every part earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks typical usage context (e.g., microtenant scoping, default service) and could be more helpful for a tool with many siblings.

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 descriptions for all four parameters. The description only adds value for the 'query' parameter by mentioning JMESPath. Other parameters (microtenant_id, query_params, service) gain no additional context. Baseline 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 explicitly states 'List ZPA PRA credentials (read-only)', clearly indicating the verb, resource, and read-only nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zpa_list_pra_portals by specifying the exact resource type.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zpa_list_pra_portals). The mention of JMESPath filtering implies usage for client-side filtering but lacks exclusions or context.

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