list_dvs_portgroups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact fields returned per portgroup, the family list envelope, the deprecated alias for items, and the error dict shape. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by useful use-case and output details. Every sentence adds value: scoping, per-item fields, when to use it, and the response shape and error format. It is informative without being bloated.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the return envelope, item contents, deprecated alias, and error behavior. Combined with the well-documented input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and their defaults. The description only reinforces that dvs_name scopes the listing, which adds context but does not materially expand on the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List distributed virtual portgroups') and adds the optional dvSwitch scoping. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_dvs_portgroup by clearly being the read-side counterpart, and no sibling covers the same resource and action.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'verify create_dvs_portgroup results or to survey network config before changes.' It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops one step short of the top score.

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