get_portal_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it lists portal groups, but does not mention whether it is read-only, how pagination works (despite the STARTFROMKEY parameter), what the response structure is, or any error conditions. The cryptic 'wraps NBAPI GetPortalGroups' adds no behavioral clarity.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no extraneous content, and it earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does.

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 should convey what the response contains and any usage caveats. It says 'lists portal groups' which implies a list of portal group objects, but it does not mention the pagination mechanism or how to interpret the STARTFROMKEY parameter in practice. Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional param), this is minimally adequate but leaves some gaps.

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% for the single parameter STARTFROMKEY, and its description already explains it as a pagination cursor. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 action ('Lists') and the resource ('portal groups configured on the NetBox system'), and the plural form distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_portal_group (singular). The mention of wrapping NBAPI GetPortalGroups adds specificity without confusion.

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 purpose implies use when a list of portal groups is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_portal_group or other sibling tools like get_portals. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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