zid_list_groups

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. Additionally, it adds behavioral context by describing the output as 'lean group summaries' with specific fields, which goes beyond what annotations provide. There is no mention of pagination or limits, but the safety profile is well-covered.

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 concise with three sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, return structure, and parameter usage. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and free of verbosity.

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 core listing behavior and one parameter, but with no output schema, it omits details like default behavior when no filter is given, pagination, sorting, and the full set of return fields. Given the tool has 5 parameters and moderate complexity, the description provides a minimum viable overview but is not fully comprehensive.

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 adds meaning for the 'name' parameter ('case-insensitive partial-name filter'), which is not described in the schema. However, schema coverage is only 20%, and the description does not cover other parameters like 'limit', 'offset', 'exclude_dynamic_groups', or 'query' (though 'query' has its own schema description). The description partially compensates for low coverage but leaves significant gaps.

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 (ZIdentity groups), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns 'lean group summaries' (id, name, description, dynamic flag, source IdP) rather than full records. This differentiates it from tools like 'zid_get_group' which returns a single full record.

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 explicitly notes the tool is 'Read-only' and describes the optional 'name' parameter for filtering. It implicitly directs usage for listing groups, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'zid_search_groups' for full-text search or 'zid_get_group' for a specific group. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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