openwisp_list_device_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it's a GET (read-only implication) and gives the API endpoint, but does not disclose pagination behavior despite page/page_size params, does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or return shape. For a listing tool with 6 params, this is a notable gap.

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 single sentence with category tag and endpoint. Front-loaded with the category and action, 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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It lacks any mention of pagination defaults, filtering semantics, or the relationship to other device group tools, which would be valuable given the six siblings for device groups.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the resource, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'device groups', with the organizational purpose stated. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like openwisp_get_device_group (singular retrieval) or openwisp_create_device_group, though the plural list form is inferable from naming conventions.

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?

No when-to-use guidance beyond the obvious list semantic. The description does not mention when to prefer this over get_device_group, nor any prerequisites like authentication. It provides minimal implied context.

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