zid_get_group_users

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the return format ('lean user summaries (id, login name, display name, primary email)'), which helps the agent anticipate output. It does not cover pagination or other behavioral traits, but for a simple read tool this adds sufficient value.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose ('List the users...') and no waste. The additional return information earns its place.

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 fully covers the tool's function and return shape, and annotations cover read-only safety. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or the query caveat (which is in the schema), but the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficiently 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?

The description clarifies the purpose of group_id ('by group ID') but does not add meaning for limit or offset, which are only visible in the schema. Schema coverage is 25%, and the query parameter has a detailed schema description, but the tool description itself does not compensate fully for the low coverage.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('users that belong to a ZIdentity group'), and the method ('by group ID'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like zid_get_group_users_by_name by specifying ID-based lookup.

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 specifies it lists users by group ID and is read-only, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the 'by group ID' phrasing implies the ID-based variant versus by-name siblings.

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