zpa_list_provisioning_keys

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only repeats 'read-only' without adding pagination behavior, output shape, or side-effect caveats. The query parameter description adds useful JMESPath and snake_case warnings, but the core tool description provides minimal behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It is appropriately concise for the limited scope it claims.

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?

This is a six-parameter tool with no output schema, but the description omits pagination defaults, return format, microtenant behavior, and search semantics. The detailed query warning is helpful, but the overall definition is incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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 description only covers the concept of 'given type' for key_type, while schema description coverage is only 17%. Parameters such as page, search, page_size, and microtenant_id are left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('ZPA provisioning keys'), and the scope ('of a given type'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zpa_get_provisioning_key and other ZPA list operations.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as zpa_get_provisioning_key or other ZPA list tools. The read-only note is a safety property but does not explain selection context or exclusions.

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