pmg_who_group_objects

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

Description tags the tool as '(read)', indicating read-only behavior. It also mentions the required environment configuration. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not fully disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, permission levels, or what happens on invalid input. The read-only hint is a minimum but insufficient for complete transparency.

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?

Description is concise (3 sentences) with no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, config requirement, and parameter clarification.

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 has an output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameter semantics and config requirements. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but for a list operation these are less critical. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 50% (only proximo_target has description). The description adds critical meaning for ogroup: it explains that the parameter is a numeric ID from groups list, not the group name. For proximo_target, the description merely restates the schema's description. Overall, it compensates for the missing schema description of ogroup.

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?

Description clearly states 'List the objects in a PMG RuleDB 'who' object group (read)'. This provides a specific verb (list) and resource (PMG RuleDB 'who' object group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pmg_who_group_get (which retrieves group details) and similar tools for other group types (pmg_what_group_objects, pmg_when_group_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?

Description explicitly notes 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config', which is a critical prerequisite. It also explains how to obtain the ogroup parameter: 'numeric ID string (e.g. '2') from the matching pmg_*_groups_list — NOT the group name'. This provides clear context for use but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools.

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