List Endpoint Groups (Action1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds the ability to get member endpoints with contents=true, but does not mention pagination or other behavioral traits beyond the schema. It provides marginal added value.

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 sentence of 13 words, front-loading the main purpose and key options. No redundant information; every phrase earns its place.

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 list tool with good annotations and schema descriptions for most parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the primary functionality and key parameters. However, it could mention return format or clarify pagination behavior, but the absence is not critical given the context.

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 71% (5 of 7 params have descriptions). The description adds meaning to the two undocumented params (groupId and contents) by explaining their roles. This compensates for the coverage gap and provides additional context beyond what the schema alone offers.

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 it lists endpoint groups, with options to fetch a specific group (by groupId) or its member endpoints (contents=true). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints (which lists individual endpoints) and action1_get_endpoint (single endpoint).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like action1_list_endpoints. It implies usage for groups but lacks explicit guidance or exclusions. The sibling tool names provide some context, but the description itself is insufficient.

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