list_address_groups

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it is implicitly a read-only list, but it never states permissions, whether results are cached/limited, or any pagination behavior. It does compensate partially by enumerating the returned fields (member count, excluded members, comment), which is real context no structured field provides.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the domain context and the sibling hand-off follow, and the Parameters/Returns blocks are compact with no filler. Every line contributes to call correctness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does supply the return fields and both parameter meanings, so an agent knows what it gets back. It omits any mention of result size limits or pagination, which is the remaining gap for a list endpoint.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting vdom is optional and falls back to the device default, which clarifies behavior the schema's bare "Virtual Domain" does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List address groups on a FortiGate device") and adds scope ("with their member names"), which cleanly separates it from list_address_objects and get_address_group_detail. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: use get_address_group_detail to resolve members to IP values, so the list-vs-detail split is stated. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a note about list size/paging, so it stops short of full guidance.

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