zpa_list_server_groups

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

The description only says '(read-only)', which merely restates the existing readOnlyHint=true annotation rather than adding new behavioral context. It does not mention pagination behavior, client-side query filtering, or any other operational details beyond what annotations already provide.

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 very short and to the point, which is good for scanning, but it is also under-specified for a tool with five optional parameters. The phrase 'read-only' is redundant with the annotation and does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema and five optional parameters, the description leaves important context uncovered, such as pagination defaults, the meaning of search, and whether this returns all server groups or supports filtering. The detailed query-parameter description in the schema is useful but is not integrated into a complete tool-level explanation.

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 five parameters and only 20% schema description coverage, the description carries no parameter information at all. It does not explain page, page_size, search, or microtenant_id; the only useful parameter guidance resides in the schema's query description, not in the tool description. Low schema coverage means the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('ZPA server groups'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling zpa_get_server_group and other list tools in the set. Although minimal, it unambiguously identifies what operation this tool performs.

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 implies usage through the word 'List' and the read-only annotation, suggesting it is the right tool when enumerating server groups. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over zpa_get_server_group, and there are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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