ztw_list_ip_groups_lite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'read-only'. It adds behavioral context about JMESPath client-side filtering, which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, performance implications, or format differences from the full list. The added value is marginal beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds value: 'list', 'ZTW IP groups', 'lite format', 'read-only', and 'Supports JMESPath client-side filtering via the query parameter'.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main action, read-only nature, and filtering capability. However, it lacks context on what 'lite format' entails versus the full format, and could mention typical use cases or prerequisites. Adequate but with gaps.

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 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description only reiterates the query parameter's purpose (JMESPath filtering) without adding new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate beyond schema.

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', the resource 'ZTW IP groups', and specifies 'lite format (read-only)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ztw_list_ip_groups (full version) and separate destination/source lite tools by implying it covers all IP groups in a condensed format.

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 mentions JMESPath filtering support, giving context for when to use the query parameter. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like ztw_list_ip_destination_groups_lite or ztw_list_ip_source_groups_lite, nor when to prefer the lite version over the full version.

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