zia_list_network_app_groups

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'List' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, result count, rate limits). Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with two parameters, so a score of 4 is reasonable.

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 has two optional parameters, no output schema, and a sibling group of tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what network application groups are, the default behavior, or how results are structured. More context would help the agent.

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 description does not explain the parameters (query and search) or their purpose. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The schema itself partially describes 'query' but 'search' lacks any description.

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 lists ZIA network application groups, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'zia_get_network_app_group' which retrieves a single group.

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 list tool versus alternatives like 'zia_get_network_app_group' (singular) or other list tools. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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