list_network_security_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output format ('trimmed summary per NSG unless raw=true') and mentions optional filtering, but does not address permissions, pagination, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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?

Two clear sentences, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a reference to the raw option. No wasted words, perfectly sized.

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, the description and rich parameter schema provide enough context to invoke it: scope, optional filter, region, and output mode. There is no output schema, so the raw/trimmed distinction is valuable. Minor gaps include pagination details, but they are less critical for this resource.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (compartmentId, vcnId, region, raw) with defaults and meaning. The tool description adds a little context about the trimmed vs raw output, but mostly relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool lists network security groups (NSGs) in a compartment, optionally filtered by VCN. It specifies the resource (NSGs) and the scoping dimensions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_security_lists.

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 gives clear context (compartment, optional VCN filter) but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus sibling tools like list_security_lists. The usage is implied by the resource name, but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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