panorama_get_collector_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail by pointing at the config path, but the path is partially elided ('/config/.../log-collector-group') and no other behavior such as response shape or error cases is disclosed.

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 short sentences with no filler or redundant explanation beyond the useful config-path note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and read-only nature.

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 read-only getter with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description conveys the target resource and source location clearly. It would be slightly stronger with a note on the return shape or an explicit distinction from collector-related siblings, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it.

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 single parameter, firewall, is fully documented in the schema with its meaning and optionality, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('collector group configuration from Panorama'), and adds a config path for extra precision. It does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling panorama_get_log_collectors, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as panorama_get_log_collectors or other Panorama getters, and no exclusions are mentioned. The [READ-ONLY] prefix conveys safety but not selection criteria.

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