list_url_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description is minimal but for a simple list operation with no parameters, the behavior is straightforward. It does not disclose potential limitations like pagination, required permissions, or whether it returns all groups. However, the lack of any issues makes it acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not specify the return format or any side effects. Siblings provide strong context, but the description could be slightly more informative about what information is returned (e.g., names and IDs).

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no extra semantics, which is fine since none are needed.

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 'List URL groups used in web filtering.' It specifies the verb (list), the resource (URL groups), and the context (web filtering). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., list_firewall_rules, list_ip_hosts). However, it lacks details about scope (e.g., all groups or filtered).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any prerequisites, alternative tools, or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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