ztw_list_ip_source_groups

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

The description explicitly notes that the tool is read-only, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by explaining that 'search' performs a server-side substring match, a detail not present in the schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, ordering, or response format, so transparency is partial.

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 extremely compact, with two sentences that convey the purpose and a key parameter behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 list operation with only two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and one parameter's behavior, but it omits any mention of response format, pagination, or potential side effects (beyond the read-only hint already annotated). Given the lack of an output schema, more context would be beneficial, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a baseline acceptable level.

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 schema provides detailed guidance for the 'query' parameter but no description for 'search'. The tool description compensates by explaining that 'search' is a server-side substring match on the group name, adding meaning beyond the raw parameter name. This effectively covers the documentation gap for 50% of parameters.

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 ('List') and the specific resource ('ZTW IP source groups'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools that list IP destination groups or other resource types. The addition of the search behavior further clarifies the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ztw_list_ip_destination_groups or ztw_list_ip_groups. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the resource name, which is insufficient for clear selection among many similar list tools.

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