zid_list_groups

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

The description states 'read-only', which is consistent with the annotation (readOnlyHint=true). It adds the JMESPath filtering detail, but no other behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds moderate 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?

The description is a single sentence that covers the core purpose and a key feature without excess. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be split for readability.

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's simplicity (read-only list with optional filtering) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main intent. It mentions the JMESPath capability, which is a key detail. No major gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions JMESPath via the 'query' parameter, which adds context, but does not go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('ZIdentity groups'), and a distinguishing feature ('JMESPath client-side filtering'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zid_get_group or zid_search_groups, but the read-only and listing nature is evident.

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 (e.g., zid_get_group for a single group, or zid_search_groups for search). The JMESPath mention implies client-side filtering, but no when-not or exclusions are given.

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