List worker groups and fleets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what gets returned ('JSON describing all...') and specifies the scope ('in the configured Cribl deployment'), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 that front-loads the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose: 'Return JSON' specifies output format, 'describing all' indicates comprehensiveness, 'Stream worker groups and Edge fleets' identifies resources, and 'in the configured Cribl deployment' provides scope. No wasted words.

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 that this is a read-only list operation with annotations covering safety, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and only one optional parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what resources are listed and the output format. The main gap is lack of guidance about when to use this versus sibling list tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the 'server' parameter has no description in the schema), the description carries the full burden but doesn't mention the parameter at all. However, since there's only one optional parameter with a null default, the tool likely works without it. The description's specification of 'in the configured Cribl deployment' somewhat compensates by implying server configuration is handled elsewhere.

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 ('Return JSON describing') and the target resources ('all Stream worker groups and Edge fleets'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling list tools (like list_destinations, list_sources), which all appear to list different resource types in the same system.

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 the sibling tools or explain why someone would list worker groups/fleets instead of other resources like destinations or pipelines. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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