zia_get_network_app_group

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response will include 'members', which is a useful behavioral hint, but does not disclose edge cases, pagination, or required permissions. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 one active sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and resource. Every word counts, and 'with members' adds valuable information without verbosity.

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 only one required parameter and no nested schemas, the description is sufficient to guide an agent. The 'with members' phrase helps compensate for the missing output schema by signaling what fields to expect. More details on default environments or authorization requirements would be needed for a 5, but the current level is complete enough for this simple get.

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 input schema has no description coverage, only a required string group_id. The description's 'by ID' is a meaningful, if minimal, clue that links the parameter to identifying the network application group. It does not explain the format or where to find the ID, but for a single required string parameter this is a viable minimum.

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 states exactly what the tool does: retrieves a single ZIA network application group by ID and includes members. It is clear and distinguishes itself from the list operations and from related group endpoints.

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 phrase 'Get a single ... by ID' implies that this tool should be used when you already have a specific network application group ID, rather than when you need to list all groups. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like zia_list_network_app_groups or describe when to avoid using it.

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