zpa_get_service_edge_group

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

The description only adds '(read-only)', which is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, response shape, or auth requirements) are disclosed beyond the 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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 simple get tool, the description provides only the most basic purpose. It lacks guidance on when to use it over the list variant, parameter context, and any behavioral expectations, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, and the description does not explain the semantics of group_id or microtenant_id. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning entirely dependent on naming conventions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ZPA service edge group'), clearly indicating a singular fetch operation. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by using 'one' rather than 'list', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage guidance is provided. It does not state when to use this tool versus zpa_list_service_edge_groups for enumeration, nor any prerequisites such as having a valid group_id.

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