list_ring_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 mentions return fields but lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with usage guidance, and no wasted words. The return fields are concisely listed. Ideal length for a simple list tool.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description provides return fields and distinguishes from similar tools. It explains ring group behavior (simultaneously/in sequence). Minor gaps: no mention of default ordering, filtering behavior beyond OData, or pagination.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the description adds no extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema. However, it lists return fields which aids understanding of output, though parameter semantics focus on input parameters.

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 (ring groups), and explicitly distinguishes from queues with 'not queues'. This helps the AI agent select the correct tool among siblings like find_queues.

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 tells when to use ('when the user asks about ring groups') and explicitly excludes queues. While it doesn't give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names, the context is clear and the sibling list includes find_queues as a logical alternative.

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