panorama_get_shared_profile_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 specific behavioral detail—'Reads config at: /config/shared/profile-group'—which tells the agent exactly where the data comes from. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe return format or error behavior.

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 clauses, front-loaded with '[READ-ONLY]' and a precise purpose. The config path is appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero waste.

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 fully documented optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and config path. It lacks a hint about the return value shape, but with no output schema and a standard list-returning tool pattern, this is a minor gap. Overall, the tool is adequately specified.

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 only parameter 'firewall' is fully documented in the schema with its optionality and source. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('shared security profile groups'), and a clear scope ('defined at Panorama level'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_security_profile_groups (device-level) and panorama_get_shared_security_profiles (profiles, not profile groups), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 context by specifying 'Panorama level' and 'shared', which implies this tool is for Panorama-managed shared groups rather than device-level groups. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, when to use them, or any exclusions, leaving the selection logic mostly to inference from the tool name and scope.

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