get_zia_user_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'read-only' is consistent. The description adds that it can fetch by ID, find by name, or list, which provides context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or response details, which is expected given annotations cover safety.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description could offer more detail on pagination, sorting, and filtering behaviors. It covers the primary modes but leaves many parameters unexplained. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is only 11% (only 'query' has a description). The description maps the three operations to likely parameters (group_id, name, and listing), but does not explain the other 6 parameters (page, page_size, sort_by, etc.). This adds some meaning but is incomplete for a 9-parameter tool.

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 reads ZIA user groups and lists three specific operations: fetch by ID, find by name, or list. The verb 'Read' is specific, and the resource is named. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different resources.

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 that the tool is for reading user groups and is read-only. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings, the sibling names are all different resource types, providing implicit differentiation. There are no exclusions or when-not advice, but the context is clear.

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