panorama_list_device_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with a [READ-ONLY] prefix. It adds useful behavioral/domain context: results include the parent chain and inherited-policy behavior, which is beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler: the first states scope and output fields, the second adds a relevant inheritance fact. The read-only marker is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return contents (parent chain and firewall fields) and explains policy inheritance. It is complete enough for a read-only listing tool, though it could have noted caveats such as the 5-minute cache outside the parameter schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains refresh and firewall. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to; baseline 3 applies.

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: lists device groups, and adds concrete output details (parent chain, member firewalls with hostname/serial/connected). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling panorama_get_device_groups, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use it when you need device-group inventory with hierarchy and member firewall details. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like panorama_get_device_groups or panorama_get_device_group_hierarchy.

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