get_zia_users

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination or the dual behavior of returning a single user vs. a list based on user_id. Since annotations already cover read-only, the description adds minimal value.

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 very concise (one short phrase) but front-loads the potentially misleading word 'Manage'. It earns its place but could be more precise without adding length.

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 tool's 8 parameters, 0 required, output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain filtering or pagination behavior, but the rich schema compensates. For a read-only tool, completeness is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 manages ZIA users with a read-only scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_zia_dlp_dictionaries or get_zia_user_departments. However, 'Manage' could imply write operations, slightly reducing clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zid_get_user or zid_list_users. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over similar siblings.

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