zid_get_group_users_by_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds valuable behavioral details: case-insensitive partial-name resolution, first-match behavior, and 'lean user summaries' as the return shape, which are not in annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and resolution behavior, with no redundant or misleading content.

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 covers the essential aspects: action, resolution method, first-match behavior, return summaries, and read-only nature. It does not explain pagination parameters, but for a simple list tool with clear schema and annotations, it 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 'name' parameter semantics (case-insensitive partial match) but says nothing about 'limit' and 'offset'. The 'query' parameter has a thorough schema description. With schema coverage at 25%, the description only partially compensates for the other parameters.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users in a ZIdentity group'), and specifies the resolution mechanism ('by group name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zid_get_group_users and zid_get_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 clear context by explaining that the group is resolved by case-insensitive partial name and that only the first matching group's members are returned. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to infer usage.

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