panorama_get_device_groups

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral detail – that it reads from the /config/.../device-group path – but does not describe return shape, ordering, or error behavior. With readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence with the read-only marker up front and the config path at the end. It is concise, though the '[READ-ONLY]' prefix partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves ambiguity relative to the similarly named panorama_list_device_groups and says nothing about the returned data. It is adequate with clear 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the one parameter (firewall) already has a thorough description, so the tool description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves all device groups configured in Panorama,' making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling panorama_list_device_groups, but the resource and config path identify its scope.

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 implies when to use the tool – whenever an agent needs all Panorama device groups – but it offers no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusion conditions. With several similar sibling tools (panorama_list_device_groups, panorama_get_device_group_hierarchy), a clearer routing note would help, so this is only implicit.

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