List Port Groups

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds nothing beyond that—no information about the scope of listing, pagination, filtering, or what 'port groups' refers to in this system.

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, extremely terse phrase that merely restates the name. While it is concise, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized—it fails to earn its place by conveying any new information.

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?

Although the output schema exists (covering return values) and the annotation covers safety, the description is incomplete for a tool with many siblings. It gives no context about what port groups are, when to use this listing, or how it differs from related list operations.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the empty schema is consistent with the description.

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 is a direct translation of the tool name and title ('List Port Groups' → '列出端口分组'), restating what is already obvious from the name. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other list_* siblings such as list_ip_groups or list_mac_groups beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the context in which listing port groups is appropriate. The description provides no usage information at all.

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