pmg_who_group_objects

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

Declares READ-ONLY nature, mentions configuration dependency ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config'), and describes output ('Returns a list of object dicts'). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and constraint, then additional details. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

Covers purpose, dependencies, parameter clarification, and sibling differentiation. Output schema covers return values, so further description is not necessary. Missing error conditions, but acceptable given overall clarity.

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 meaning by emphasizing that ogroup is a numeric ID from another list and not the group name. This clarifies the parameter beyond the schema description. Proximo_target is less elaborated, but overall adds value.

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 'who' object group, with a specific verb ('list') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling pmg_who_group_get by noting that tool retrieves the group's own config, not member objects.

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?

Explicitly guides the agent on when to use this tool vs. pmg_who_group_get: 'Use pmg_who_group_get for the group's own config (not its member objects).' Also clarifies that ogroup must be a numeric ID from pmg_who_groups_list, not the group name.

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