zpa_list_app_connector_groups

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and description reinforces read-only. It adds behavioral details: returns entire tenant, supports server-side name substring match, and JMESPath client-side filtering. No contradictions.

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?

Three efficient sentences: first states purpose, second lists output fields, third provides usage context. No wasted words.

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 has 6 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, returns, usage context, and read-only nature. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description references name search and query parameter but does not add significant meaning beyond the already detailed schema descriptions.

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 tool lists ZPA App Connector Groups in a read-only manner, specifies returned fields (id, name, location, etc.), and gives the use case. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only list-all connector group tool.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use this to discover existing connector groups before creating server groups...' and 'before onboarding an application.' It does not mention when not to use or compare to get_app_connector_group, but the context is clear.

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