list_placement_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 behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all placement groups' but doesn't describe output format, pagination, sorting, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a read-only list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word ('List all placement groups') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, list operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide complete guidance for an agent to use it effectively without additional assumptions.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline. No parameters means no semantic gaps to compensate for, and the description correctly implies no inputs are required for listing.

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 action ('List') and resource ('placement groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_placement_group' and 'delete_placement_group' by specifying listing rather than modification. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., 'all' is implied but not explicit) or differentiate from other list tools like 'list_servers' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a placement group), or comparisons to other list tools (e.g., 'list_servers' for different resources). Usage is implied by the name alone, with no explicit when/when-not statements.

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