datto_edr_target_groups_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what target groups contain, but says nothing about pagination (schema covers it), result size, or what the returned records look like.

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 with zero padding: the first states the action and endpoint, the second front-loads the domain meaning and the reason an agent would call it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only tells the agent that ids are the payload of interest; it does not describe other returned fields or pagination behavior, though the schema covers paging inputs. Adequate for a filtered list tool, with a small gap on return shape.

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% — name, skip, limit, order, where, and fields are all documented in the schema, including nextSkip semantics and supported LoopBack operators. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Datto EDR target groups') plus the underlying endpoint (GET /api/targets), and explains what the resource is (hosts that scans and response actions run against). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling datto_edr_target_groups_get, so the list-vs-single distinction is only implied by the names.

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?

Gives concrete downstream context: the returned ids are needed by datto_edr_scan_host and the response tools, which tells an agent when to call this first. No explicit when-not or alternative-path guidance (e.g. when to use target_groups_get by id instead) is given.

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