list_server_groups

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints: readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds context about returned data (instance counts, cloud provider details), which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. Every word 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?

Given only one simple parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and basic output content well. It does not detail edge cases or response format, but completeness is adequate for this query-like tool.

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% with a single required parameter 'application' described as 'Application name as registered in Spinnaker'. The description does not add additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists server groups (deployment targets) for a Spinnaker application, including instance counts and cloud provider details. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('server groups') and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_target_server_group' by its plural listing focus.

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 implies when to use (listing all server groups for an application) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The sibling tool 'get_target_server_group' exists for a single server group, but no comparative mention is made.

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