zia_list_location_groups

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds that the API does not support mutations and that filters (name/search/group_type) and JMESPath are supported. This provides useful behavioral context, though pagination and error handling are not addressed.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and context, followed by the read-only note and filter summary. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the resource, read-only nature, and filtering capabilities. It does not explicitly state the return type (list of location groups) or pagination behavior, but with 100% schema coverage and a clear name, it is mostly 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 100%, so the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It summarises filter support, but each parameter is already well-documented in the schema.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'ZIA location groups', and provides context on how they are used (referenced by ID in rule resources). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact resource type and includes read-only semantics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use (when listing location groups via read-only API) and notes the absence of create/update/delete endpoints, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'zia_get_location_group' exist but are not referenced.

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