prtg_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the id-chaining note adds useful workflow behavior. However, it does not describe the return shape, pagination behavior, or any access/rate considerations beyond what the schema already implies.

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 two tight, purposeful sentences. The first defines the tool's purpose and resource; the second explains how its output links to downstream tools. There is no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name.

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 list operation with a fully documented schema, the description covers scope and downstream usage well. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and no explicit statement of what a returned group object contains, though the id-chaining note partially compensates.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with explicit descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, but none is necessary because the schema fully carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List groups', and clarifies that groups are 'organizational folders that contain devices.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prtg_list_devices, prtg_list_probes, and prtg_list_sensors. The follow-up note about `id` chaining into prtg_get_group and prtg_get_object_sensor_summary further clarifies the tool's role.

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 definition makes clear that this tool is for enumerating groups, and that each returned group's id is the input for detail/summary tools. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of prtg_list_devices', but the resource definition is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool applies.

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