ztw_list_network_service_groups

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation which already signals a safe read operation. It does not disclose pagination, filtering, or any side effects, but it does not contradict annotations. The 'read-only' statement adds minimal value as it repeats the annotation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately states the read-only nature. Highly concise and efficient.

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 only two optional parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it does not mention the existence of the query parameter for client-side filtering, which is a significant capability that could influence invocation. The lack of output schema is acceptable for a list operation, but the description could have briefly noted the query parameter.

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 tool description itself provides no parameter information. The schema covers only 50% of parameters (query is well-documented with JMESPath examples, but search has no description). Since the description does not compensate for the undocumented search parameter, an agent may misuse it without clarification.

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 states 'List ZTW network service groups' which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (ZTW network service groups). It is specific enough, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like zia_list_network_svc_groups which may serve a different product prefix (ZIA vs ZTW). The read-only part is redundant with the annotation but clarifies intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (e.g., zia_list_network_svc_groups, ztw_list_network_services). The description lacks any context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide among alternatives.

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