roboshadow_list_application_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond a generic list: grouping by application identity rather than install, aggregated install/device counts, distinct version counts, and conditional best-matching WinGet package resolution. It does not discuss pagination or error behavior, but those are largely inferable 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?

The description is a single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It places the resource and scope first, then packs the key output details and the 'not per-install' distinction into the same sentence without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with standard pagination parameters and no output schema, the description explains what each returned item contains and how items are grouped. It falls slightly short of specifying the response envelope or pagination metadata, but the schema already documents parameter behavior and the core purpose is fully covered.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description, including how to discover organisationId. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List applications grouped across the organisation', and immediately clarifies the aggregation scope with 'by application identity, not per-install'. It also names the distinguishing output fields (install/device counts, version counts, WinGet package), so an agent can tell it apart from per-device and per-group 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?

'Across the organisation' and 'not per-install' give a clear context for when to use this tool: an org-wide, application-identity-level listing. It implies that per-install detail is out of scope, but it does not explicitly name an alternative like roboshadow_get_device_applications or roboshadow_get_application_group for those cases.

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