pmg_who_groups_list

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

Labels the operation as '(read)', implying no side effects. However, with no annotations, the description should disclose more about behavior like rate limits, error cases, or idempotency. The config requirement is noted but not explained further.

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?

Extremely concise with two focused sentences. The primary action is stated first, and the supplementary path information is provided without unnecessary detail.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers core aspects: purpose, read nature, config requirement, and API path. It could mention that results are a list of groups, but this is implied.

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% and the single parameter 'proximo_target' has a thorough description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states it lists all PMG RuleDB 'who' object groups and is a read operation. The verb 'list' and resource 'PMG RuleDB 'who' object groups' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like pmg_who_group_create, pmg_who_group_get, etc.

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?

Indicates prerequisite 'Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config' and provides the API path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as pmg_who_group_get for a specific group, though the name and context make it implied.

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