netmiko.list_groups

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the read-only nature (list operation) and the return format (JSON with groups and count), and warns against inventing group names. It does not mention error handling or performance, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bolded IMPORTANT note, a usage tip, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no parameters, an output schema, and a straightforward list operation, the description fully covers usage, prerequisites, and return value. It also clarifies its role in relation to send_show_command_to_group, making it complete in 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no param info is needed. The description does not add parameter details because there are none; baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. The output schema already covers the return structure, and the description reinforces it.

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 'List every device group defined in the inventory' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_devices and send_show_command_to_group by focusing on groups, and the tool's role 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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'call netmiko.get_metadata FIRST' for network devices, and 'Call this before assuming a group name exists — never invent one.' This sets clear prerequisites and usage timing, effectively preventing misuse without overcomplicating.

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