List network security groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: explicit scope requirements ('full/read defaults do not grant networking') and backend enforcement of ownership, feature availability, and service 2FA locks. These are the kind of hidden preconditions an agent would otherwise trip over.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the preconditions. The permission sentence mentions 'changes' for what is a read-only tool, which is slightly off-purpose, but nothing is padded.

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?

One required parameter, no output schema, annotated as a safe read; the description covers sourcing, permissions, and enforcement, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not mention pagination or list shape, a minor remaining gap for a list tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the UUID pattern, so baseline is 3. The description still adds sourcing guidance beyond the schema: where to obtain project_id ('copy from the network') and an explicit anti-pattern ('do not invent an account identifier'), which prevents a plausible failure mode.

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 groups in the owned project') and scopes it to the caller's owned project, which distinguishes it from get_network_security_policy or the clone/create/update siblings. The wording 'groups' is slightly loose for 'network security groups', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Provides real preconditions (project_id must come from an owned networking resource, explicit networking:read scope required), but never says when to pick this tool over siblings such as get_network_security_policy or get_security_group_capabilities. Usage is implied by the precondition text rather than stated as guidance.

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