zia_get_ip_source_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds that the response includes the full member list, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., not found behavior) or whether the response is paginated, though with a single group this is less critical.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint, the description is adequate. It covers the core purpose and the notable detail of the full member list. It doesn't mention return format, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which clarifies group_id's purpose, but doesn't specify the format (e.g., numeric string) or that it's required. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 retrieves a single ZIA IP source group by ID and includes its full member list. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zia_list_ip_source_groups (which lists groups) and zia_get_ip_destination_group (which gets a different 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?

The description implies usage when a specific group ID is known and full member details are needed, contrasting with list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like zia_list_ip_source_groups for browsing without an ID.

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