List Protocol Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description contributes nothing further: no note on result volume, ordering, whether the list is complete or paginated, or what a 'protocol group' represents. It is purely a restatement of the name.

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?

A single short phrase with zero padding and nothing to trim. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, output schema present, readOnly annotation), so the burden is light. Still, the description never clarifies which feature's protocol groups these are, leaving genuine ambiguity against the many similarly named list tools in this server.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are missing.

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 literal translation of the tool name and title ('列出协议分组' = 'list protocol groups'), adding no information beyond what the identifier already conveys. It also fails to distinguish this tool from several close siblings such as list_custom_protocols, list_advanced_custom_protocols, list_ip_groups, list_mac_groups, list_port_groups and list_domain_groups.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With ~15 sibling 'list_*_groups'/'list_*_protocols' tools in the same server, an agent has no basis for choosing this one over them.

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