List Server Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds context about refresh_interval parameter (live-verified range), but does not explain pagination behavior or response size. Adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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 sentences, but the second sentence about refresh_interval seems misplaced and unclear whether it's about an input parameter or output field. Could be more concise by focusing on the core listing behavior and pagination.

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?

Tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. Description tells what is returned but omits how to paginate or change output format. Lacks completeness given the need to guide agent on param usage. Incomplete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. However, description does not explain the three parameters (page, limit, output_format). It mentions 'refresh_interval' which is not in the schema, causing confusion. Fails to add necessary parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states it lists all Automox server groups with device counts and assigned policies. The verb 'List' and resource 'server groups' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like get_server_group and list_devices.

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?

Implies usage for retrieving all server groups, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_server_group or how to choose between list tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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