list_service_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful return context, including group name, resolved member ports, and comments, but it does not mention pagination, permissions, or whether the operation is guaranteed read-only beyond the implication of 'List'.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and structured with clear Parameters and Returns sections. It is efficient, though the parameter section partly duplicates information already available in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return contents: group name, resolved member ports, and comment. For a simple two-parameter list tool this is nearly complete, though it does not address pagination or response size.

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 100%, and the description merely repeats the two parameters already documented in the schema. The optional nature of vdom is noted, but no additional semantics or examples are added beyond the schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List service groups', and adds the distinctive behavior that members are 'resolved to protocol/ports'. This clearly separates it from list_service_objects and list_address_groups, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for routing.

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 does not state when an agent should choose this tool over related siblings such as list_service_objects or list_address_groups. It provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context beyond the literal action of listing groups.

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