zid_get_group_users_by_name

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms read-only nature and adds detail on resolution behavior (case-insensitive partial name, first matching group) and output type (lean user summaries). No contradictions.

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 sentences: first sentence states purpose and read-only nature; second explains resolution and output. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 list tool without output schema, the description explains the output (lean user summaries for the first matching group). It does not explain pagination via limit/offset, but the schema parameters cover that. Overall adequate.

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 description coverage is low (25%), and the description adds context for the 'name' parameter (partial, case-insensitive). It does not document limit, offset, or query beyond the schema, but the 25% coverage means the description partially compensates.

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 verb (list), resource (users in a ZIdentity group), and the method (resolved by group name). It distinguishes itself from siblings like zid_get_group_users which likely uses an ID, making the purpose specific.

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 explains the resolution logic (case-insensitive partial name) and implies when to use (when you have a group name). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like zid_get_group_users.

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