listIpGroups

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. It usefully reveals the authentication requirement (OMADA_WEB_USERNAME/OMADA_WEB_PASSWORD) and implies a read-only operation via 'List,' but it omits behavior around the optional siteId (e.g., what happens if omitted) and does not describe output format, pagination, or error cases.

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 compact and well-structured: the core function is front-loaded, followed by a relevant usage note and the credential requirement. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-param read tool, the description covers purpose, use case, and credentials. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the return shape, and it leaves the behavior of the optional siteId ambiguous. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking it correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for documenting the single parameter, siteId. It only vaguely references 'a site' without explicitly naming siteId or explaining its format, optionality, or default behavior. This leaves meaningful semantic gaps for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List IP/port groups configured in a site.' The addition of 'IP/port groups' and the firewall ACL context clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like listFirewallAcls or listClients, so an agent can identify the tool's unique purpose.

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 implies usage context by noting that groups can be used in firewall ACL rules, which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like listFirewallAcls, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the credential requirement.

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