Get Device Groups

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 no behavioral context beyond that—no information about permissions, rate limits, or what 'available' means (e.g., filtered by user access). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, for a tool with 1 undocumented parameter and no usage guidance among siblings, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in parameter meaning and contextual application.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. The schema shows one optional parameter 'params' that can be an object or null, but its purpose is undocumented. Baseline 3 applies as the schema exists, but the description fails 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 clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('available device groups in Cisco NSO'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_device_config' or 'get_device_state', which also retrieve device-related information but focus on different aspects.

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. With siblings like 'get_device_config' and 'get_device_state' that retrieve different device data, there's no indication of when device groups are needed versus other device information, leaving usage context unclear.

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