bitdefender_list_custom_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the return format (plain array, not paginated) and the shape of entries ({id, name}), plus the fact that it returns only direct children. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only list operation.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: scope, parameter behavior, and return format. Efficient and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: how to call it, what it returns, and how to use the result. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already describes parentId, but the description adds the specific top-level group names ('Computers and Groups' and 'Deleted') and the downstream usage of the returned IDs. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Omit for the top-level groups' text.

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 a specific verb (list), a specific resource (child groups), and a scope (under a group in the Network Inventory tree). It also clarifies top-level behavior and mentions how returned IDs can be reused with sibling tools, distinguishing it from list_endpoints and list_network_inventory.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to omit parentId and how to chain the result with bitdefender_list_endpoints and bitdefender_list_network_inventory. While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives, the tool's role as a prerequisite group-lister is evident from the description.

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