Get Device Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available' means in practice. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enhance the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter insights, which are gaps considering the presence of sibling tools and a generic parameter. The description is minimal but not fully complete for optimal agent use.

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 0%, with one parameter 'params' that accepts any object or null. The description provides no information about parameters, not even hinting at possible filters or options. However, since the parameter is optional and generic, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the structure, but the description fails to add any semantic meaning.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'available device groups in Cisco NSO', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_device_config or get_device_state, which also retrieve device-related information but focus on different aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among similar-sounding siblings like get_device_config and get_device_state.

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