cls_describe_machine_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions this is a query/list operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond basic offset/limit parameters, or what happens when no results match filters. The description provides some context about machine groups but lacks operational transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with a clearer distinction from sibling tools, but overall it's appropriately sized and efficiently organized.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), 4 parameters with good description coverage, and moderate complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what machine groups are, documents all parameters with semantics, and references related tools. The main gap is lack of behavioral transparency around authentication, rate limits, and error conditions.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: offset (pagination offset, default 0), limit (items per page, default 20), group_name (filter by machine group name, optional), and region (geographic region, optional, with examples and reference to another tool for available regions). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose as '查询机器组列表' (query machine group list), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It further explains that machine groups are management units for log collection endpoints. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cls_describe_machine_group_detail' which presumably provides detailed information about a specific machine group.

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 some implied usage context by mentioning that machine groups are '用于统一管理一组日志源机器' (used to uniformly manage a group of log source machines). It also references 'cls_describe_regions' for getting available regions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cls_describe_machine_group_detail' or provide clear exclusions.

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