zia_list_network_app_groups

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description simply says 'List' without adding behavioral context such as pagination, record shape, or whether all groups are returned. It does not contradict annotations, but it also adds no transparency beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, though it is minimal.

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 read-only list tool, the description is minimally viable. The detailed query-parameter guidance helps compensate, but the overall definition lacks output-shape or pagination context, and the search parameter remains opaque.

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?

One of the two parameters (query) has an excellent schema description covering JMESPath syntax, field-name caveats, and the empty-list risk. However, the search parameter has no description, and the main description adds no parameter-level guidance, leaving a coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('ZIA network application groups'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like zia_list_network_apps and zia_get_network_app_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that a singular getter exists (zia_get_network_app_group) or any context about when listing groups is appropriate.

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