pmg_what_group_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is a read operation and provides the verified API path. While it could add more detail on response format, the read-only nature is clear and sufficient.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding necessary parameter guidance and config requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity, the existence of an output schema (relieving need to explain returns), and the inclusion of config and parameter guidance, the description is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'proximo_target' is described). The description compensates by explaining 'ogroup' meaning and usage, adding critical context not present in the schema.

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's action (List objects), resource (PMG RuleDB 'what' object group), and explicitly marks it as a read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the 'what' group type and providing the API path.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config' and gives specific guidance on the 'ogroup' parameter (numeric ID from groups list, not name). While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the tool name and sibling context imply when to use this vs. other group types.

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