ztw_list_ip_source_groups_lite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only'. It adds a small amount of context about the 'lighter SDK endpoint' implying performance trade-offs, but it does not elaborate on typical differences (e.g., pagination, field subset, rate limits). With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: two sentences that state the purpose and the relationship to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. No structural issues.

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 is a simple list operation with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not mention what the 'search' parameter does or how the lite endpoint differs in output (e.g., reduced fields, performance). For a lite variant, more detail on trade-offs would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'query' parameter has a detailed description covering JMESPath usage, examples, field-name casing pitfalls, and a recommendation to call without query first. The 'search' parameter has only its type and default with no description. The description itself does not add parameter information beyond the schema, but the schema's 'query' description is already thorough, compensating for the uncovered 'search' parameter.

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 ZTW IP source groups using a lighter SDK endpoint and explicitly notes it returns the same records as ztw_list_ip_source_groups but via a lite endpoint. This distinguishes it from its sibling and the zia_list_ip_source_groups variant, though it could be more explicit about the domain division (ZTW vs ZIA).

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 it is read-only and uses a lighter endpoint, implying it is the preferred choice when the full tool's output size or speed is a concern. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this lite version versus the regular ztw_list_ip_source_groups, nor does it mention any trade-offs or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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