list_host_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists host groups and includes member counts, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly describe safety (though it is implied to be read-only), authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the parameter schema.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the essential information: it lists host groups and notes the inclusion of member counts. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 its simplicity and the comprehensive parameter schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the purpose and the key output detail (member counts). It does not explain return structure in detail, but that is not critical for a list operation without an 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (page, limit, search) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'host groups' and adds context 'configured in Centreon with member counts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_service_groups and list_hosts.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for retrieving host groups, providing sufficient context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria compared to other list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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