ise_dc_view_security_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 of disclosing behavior. It labels this as a '[Report]' (implying read-only) and lists filterable columns, but does not disclose how results are returned, whether there are limits, whether the 'LEARNED_FROM' implies multi-source data, or any pagination/ordering behavior. For a data-view tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact two-part statement (purpose + filterable columns) with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately gives actionable column names. Concise and to the point, though slightly sparse in behavioral detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a fairly simple flat list tool, the description provides the core purpose and filterable columns but omits return format, ordering defaults, and interaction with days_back/limit semantics. For a moderately simple 7-param query tool this is adequate-verging-on-adequate; the missing behavioral detail slightly undercuts completeness but the column list is genuinely useful.

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%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters. The description adds the filterable column list (NAME, SGT_DEC, SGT_HEX, DESCRIPTION, LEARNED_FROM) which helps an agent know what to pass as filter_column. However, with full schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description's added value beyond the schema's parameter docs is modest, so 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 states 'List and details of security groups' with a [Report] prefix, using specific verb+resource. It lists filterable columns (NAME, SGT_DEC, SGT_HEX, DESCRIPTION, LEARNED_FROM), which clarifies scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the dedicated view name plus column list reasonably differentiates it among the many ise_dc_view_* siblings.

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 [Report] label implies it's a read-only data view, and the description gives filterable columns as usage hints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs the generic ise_dc_view or ise_dc_query, nor when to prefer this over ise_ers_list_sgt/search_sgt for security group info. Usage context is implied but not explicitly compared to alternatives.

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