pmg_what_group_objects

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

The description declares the tool as READ-ONLY and mentions the PROXIMO_PMG_* config requirement. Since no annotations are provided, this adequately covers the behavioral traits, though it could mention pagination or limits if applicable.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a clarification. It front-loads the READ-ONLY flag and essential information with no fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. It clearly explains the input parameter, distinguishes from a sibling, and notes a config requirement. It could mention any other prerequisites but is generally complete for a list tool.

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 100%, but the description adds valuable context for ogroup: it must be a numeric ID from pmg_what_groups_list, not the group name. This surpasses the baseline of 3 by clarifying parameter usage beyond 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 lists objects in a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group (specific verb+resource) and distinguishes from sibling pmg_what_group_get, which retrieves the group's own configuration.

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 tells when to use (to list member objects) and when not to (use pmg_what_group_get for the group's own config). It also specifies that ogroup must be a numeric ID from pmg_what_groups_list, but doesn't explicitly mention other usage contexts or exclusions.

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