pmg_who_groups_list

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

The description explains it is READ-ONLY, which is a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations (since annotations are absent). It also notes the need for PROXIMO_PMG_* config, adding context. While it doesn't cover every edge case (e.g., pagination), the behavior is well-understood for a list operation.

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: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and configuration requirement. Every sentence adds distinct value (purpose, output, alternatives), with no wasted 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?

For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the operation type, prerequisite configuration, output format, and sibling tool comparisons. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need further elaboration.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the sole optional parameter (proximo_target) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra 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 it lists all PMG RuleDB 'who' object groups, using verbs like 'list' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pmg_who_group_get (for one group's config) and pmg_what_groups_list/pmg_when_groups_list (for other group types).

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to list all 'who' groups) and when not to: for 'what' or 'when' groups it directs to pmg_what_groups_list/pmg_when_groups_list, and for a single group config it points to pmg_who_group_get. This provides excellent usage guidance.

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