cdp_list_execution_summary_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, default tenant behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (list operation, one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and poor schema coverage, it lacks context on usage, parameters, and behavior, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with one parameter ('tenant_id') undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a tenant' but doesn't explain the parameter's role, format, or that it's optional (default null). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'List execution summary groups for a tenant' clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('execution summary groups'), but it's vague about what 'execution summary groups' are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdp_get_execution_summary_group' (singular) or 'cdp_list_execution_buckets'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating groups), or exclusions (e.g., not for detailed views). With many sibling tools, this omission leaves the agent without usage direction.

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