List port groups

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that only active port groups are returned and that pagination is used ('Page through'). However, it does not explain what defines 'active', the ordering, or the behavior of the cursor. This is partial transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and defines a domain concept. Every word earns its place with no 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 list tool with an output schema and familiar pagination parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it defines what port groups are, notes their relationship to PortPolicy, and states the active filter. However, it could be more complete by explicitly naming the alternative for archived groups and elaborating on cursor usage.

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. It only says 'Page through', which hints at pagination but does not explain 'limit' or 'after_cursor' semantics. The parameter names and defaults are self-evident, but the description adds minimal value for understanding their usage or format.

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 tool pages through every active port group, using a specific verb ('page through') and resource ('port groups'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_archived_port_groups' and 'get_port_group' by explicitly noting 'active' and the list nature.

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 for active port groups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_archived_port_groups'. The term 'active' provides clear context, but there are no explicit exclusion or alternative references.

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