zia_list_network_app_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds '(read-only)'. It also mentions JMESPath client-side filtering, which adds some behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not cover pagination, rate limits, or error handling.

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 conveys the main purpose and key feature. It is concise but not overly so; however, it could be more structured with separate sentences for read-only and JMESPath support.

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 that this is a read-only list tool with optional parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the filtering capability. However, it does not mention the return format or any prerequisites, but the output schema covers return values.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the 'query' parameter supports JMESPath filtering, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema description. The 'search' parameter is not elaborated further.

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 'List ZIA network application groups' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions read-only nature and JMESPath filtering, distinguishing it from other list tools.

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 listing ZIA network application groups, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zia_list_network_apps or other list tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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