zms_list_resource_groups

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, confirming read-only behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return content: 'managed and unmanaged groups with member counts, CIDRs, and FQDNs,' and mentions pagination limits (max 100). No contradictions with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: listing, filtering options, return content, and JMESPath support. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 6 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers core functionalities: pagination, filtering, JMESPath query, and return details. It doesn't mention the 'service' parameter, but it is clearly described in the schema. Overall, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 explains each parameter. The description summarizes key filtering options ('Filter by name or resource_hostname') and JMESPath support, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. 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 starts with 'List ZMS resource groups with pagination and filtering,' clearly stating the action (list) and resource (resource groups). It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities by specifying 'resource groups' and mentioning pagination and filtering capabilities.

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 on when to use the tool: for listing resource groups with filtering by name or resource_hostname, and JMESPath client-side filtering. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling tools list different resources, making the purpose distinct.

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