zpa_get_server_group

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

The description redundantly echoes the readOnlyHint annotation ('read-only') without adding new behavioral traits. No additional details about authentication, side effects, or constraints are disclosed. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal value, aligning with a baseline score of 3.

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, making it concise but excessively brief. It lacks structure and detail, such as separating purpose from usage cues. While brevity is positive, it omits critical information, so it earns a midpoint score.

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 absence of an output schema and only 2 parameters with no descriptions, the tool description is incomplete. It does not explain what a server group is, what the response format looks like, or any constraints. The presence of many sibling tools further demands clarity on scope and behavior, which is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters, especially the optional 'microtenant_id'. However, it only mentions 'Get one ZPA server group', leaving both parameters unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory for 'group_id', but 'microtenant_id' lacks context, reducing helpfulness.

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 (get) and resource (one ZPA server group) with a read-only note, matching the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'zpa_list_server_groups' nor specify that it retrieves by ID, though the input schema implies this via the required 'group_id' field.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zpa_list_server_groups'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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