scm_list_address_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, authentication requirements, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more polished.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks depth on behavior, usage context, and full parameter details, making it adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'folder' scopes the query and 'tsg_id' defaults to SCM_TSG_ID, which helps beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully cover both parameters' semantics (e.g., format of folder, what TSG ID represents), keeping it at baseline.

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 ('List') and resource ('address group objects in a folder'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like scm_list_addresses or scm_list_folders, which would require a 5.

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 mentions scoping to a folder but doesn't explain why this is needed or how it relates to other list operations in the system, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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